This again. For the last time. I didn't care to address it because we've discussed the subject to death already in up to two other threads. You think it isn't a matter of opinion with regards to how you choose to calculate the differences between the two GPU. I, in fact, do. I think the PS4 GPU being the stronger of the two must be the first variable in any calculation when looking at the difference in raw compute power between the two, that way you ensure a greater chance to properly view the One GPU as the 1.2TFLOP GPU that it is without introducing other biases into the result. When you start from the more powerful part and then calculate down to 1.2 TFLOPS, you get 33%. I think it's important to do it this way for one simple reason: When you do it the other way around, I feel that more factors than just peak theoretical compute power come into play, such as what represents 50% of a 1.2TFLOP GPU, which I don't think is as important when looking at the differences between peak theoretical performance.
You can call it accurate either way, because the math does indeed work out both ways. I acknowledge that going from lower to higher gives you 50%, but people seem to not be interested in acknowledging the opposite as valid in anyway, which gives you 33%. You just choose to accept one over the other, as I choose to accept one over the other.
I think the top down approach makes more sense for looking at true differences in peak compute performance. This isn't just a thing I like to do for console gpus, I do it for many other things, too. I think the bottom up approach makes more sense for showcasing how much the weaker part would have to be improved to match the stronger part, which factors in more than just the peak theoretical performance of each part, something I think goes beyond the scope of the exercise in the first place, which is why I frown upon the practice of doing it that way. To you and some others this difference may seem completely insignificant, or you may think there's no difference in meaning at all between the two approaches, but I don't see it that way, hence that qualifies as much more than a simple argument about math. We aren't arguing math, we are arguing over a preferred methodology, hence my opinion.
Now forgive me if I choose not to engage on this tired and run down issue again in the future. I'm not changing my view, and you aren't changing yours.
