I'm sorry, but it's common knowledge that the power difference between the two consoles is about 20% - or 18%, if you prefer. You spent a lot of time trying to paint me as someone who 1) didn't know anything about numbers, 2) weren't able to do simple maths and 3) trying to bait me into getting mad, by saying shit like "keep embarrasing yourself".
But you're right, the forum rules does allow you to ask people to "back up and defend their claims", but the forum rules doesn't allow you to act like an idiot while doing it. Looking at that tag of yours, it does seem like you're having issues remembering that.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to round up 18% to 20% in casual conversation as you did. But it's a 20% bigger theoretical peak figure relating to one area of a GPU. Arguably an important one, but it's somewhat mitigated straight away by other areas being slightly more than 20% slower.
(18% more compute vs 22% more cache speed, work scheduling speed, rasterising etc)
If the clock-speeds were identical and one GPU had 20% more CUs, then it would be more straight forward.
If two cards had the same maximum theoretical figure but at different clock-speeds, it wouldn't be fair to say there is 0% difference in power or performance.
The one with the faster clock speed would be more powerful in every benchmark and game.
Finally and most importantly, 20% extra compute doesn't mean 20% extra frame rate etc. It doesn't mean 20% extra "performance" from a game as it doesn't scale that way in reality.
20% more compute potential is pretty reasonable to say although still a tiny bit misleading as there won't be entirely equal CU efficiency between the two, even just at a hardware level. How much difference is unknown currently. Could be negligible, could be fairly modest.
20% more powerful GPU is misleading as they aren't running at the same clock-speed, and a GPU is more than its vector units.
20% more performance in game (which I don't think you ever claimed) is nonsense, and the different graphics APIs used by Sony and Microsoft will probably introduce more variability than on pure hardware.
None of this is saying PS5 GPU is better or even equal to XSX, either. Just that it's hard to quantify as neatly as just focussing on one number would suggest.
I personally believe the initial rumours that said they were very close in rendering performance, despite the very different philosophies taken by either side.
I think with modern game engine designs targeting fixed frame rate and dynamic resolution rather than a fixed frame buffer and an uncapped or v-sync clamped frame rate means it's going to be extremely difficult to spot any differences between the two in multi-platform games, and the argument will effectively fizzle out, or "wins" will be claimed based on a 50x zoom in of a dynamic shadow cast by a tree in the background, or one console hitting a low of 58 vs 59 FPS in a particularly intense moment of an in engine cut-scene.
What's going to matter is the games that set either apart, and that's not something that can be rounded up to a round figure on paper. It's what sells consoles, makes money and is what this whole thing is all about in the first place.
That's what Microsoft needs to close the gap on (in my personal opinion) and I think they know it, and have already invested in sorting that out.
I also agree with someone here who said that Microsoft coming in strong with some excellent first-party games is literally the best thing that can happen to gamers of all stripes.
It will push Sony to try and raise it to the next level in response, and spend where they normally would have felt comfortable not to.
It will help grow Xbox as a brand outside of the Anglosphere, shift way more units, and cement its future in the home console market instead of the streaming one.
The console arena would be in great shape if seven years from now people are arguing over who did the better job on games, and everyone felt compelled to buy both platforms, even if one did get bought a year or two later on.
I genuinely hope Halo Infinite recaptures the energy and innovation of the first two titles. I hope something completely out of left field gets revealed in the next Xbox event of Horizon Forbidden West caliber that means all but the most religious and devout Sonyphiles also need to get in on some Xbox action, too.
That will do more to make XSX a success than any real or misconstrued 20% GPU advantage.
That just won't translate as some people are suggesting.
Bias Disclaimer: I had and enjoyed an Xbox and PS2, a 360 and PS3, but didn't bother with Xbox One. I'm currently more excited about what PS5 is showing in hardware and games so far shown.
I'll also be having a hair trigger on an XSX purchase as soon as they show "that" game and it materialises in reviews.
).
