While Microsoft and Sony both leverage AMD's Graphics Core Next architecture for their next-generation consoles, Microsoft's shader count is matched pretty well to the same Bonaire GPU found on the desktop Radeon HD 7790. Sony, on the other hand, appears to have a derivative of AMD's Pitcairn design found on the Radeon HD 7800s. Much has already been said comparing both devices and their capabilities. However, the fact that developers are running certain games at lower native resolutions on the Xbox One than the PS4 and then upscaling the output makes it pretty clear that Sony's GPU is more powerful.
But gaming consoles do not mirror the PC graphics card market. The fastest console doesn't always win, as Sega can attest to.

There are also some very significant differences between actual desktop GPUs and the hardware inside the Xbox One. For instance, Bonaire has 14 Compute Units. As we know, each CU has four Vector Units, and each VU contains 16 shaders. That adds up to 896 of AMD's Stream processors running at 1 GHz, in the case of Radeon HD 7790. We also know from digging deeper into the PS4 that Sony wanted eight of AMD's asynchronous compute engines in its GPU. AMD's mainstream GPUs have two. Clearly, they call these semi-custom designs for a reason.

The Xbox One's GPU sports 12 CUs, totaling 768 Stream processors, and a clock rate recently revised up to 853 MHz. Microsoft has also stated publicly that some of the GPU's resources will be reserved for the Kinect and operating environment, before we even get to differences in each console's memory bandwidth.
Microsoft equips the Xbox One's SoC with 8 GB of conventional DDR3-2133 memory in a quartet of channels. A 256-bit aggregate interface yields 68.3 GB/s of throughput, which is quite a ways behind the PS4’s 176 GB/s. But Microsoft has a trick up its sleeve. Taking a page from the Xbox 360 playbook, Microsoft embeds 32 MB in four 8 MB slices on 256-bit buses. At minimum, it's rated for 109 GB/s, though Microsoft also specifies a 204 GB/s peak.
Despite its comparatively less powerful GPU, AMD managed to build a very technically impressive SoC for the Xbox One. It measures a substantial 362mm2, which is pretty close to the Tahiti GPU on AMD's Radeon R9 280X measuring 352 mm2...and that's just a graphics processor. Yet, both are designed for next-gen gaming.
- Xbox One: The Exterior Design
- Power, Internal Storage, And Game Installations
- The Xbox One CPU: Complements Of AMD's Jaguar µArch
- The Xbox One GPU: GCN-Based
- The Xbox One's Controller: Vastly Improved
- A New Kinect Camera: The Xbox One's Other Controller
- Kinect, Your Privacy, And The Future
- Watching TV Through The Xbox One
- More Software: Snap, IE, Bing, And Smartglass
- Is The Xbox One Convergence Done Right?

At the time being,IMO PS4 is a better gaming machine;whereas,X1 is a better entertainment system.
PS4 has a more powerful GPU so it should perform better in games and is $100 cheaper too;whereas,X1 tries to do more than just gaming and costs more.
For me,PS4 is a better machine because I only tend to play games on a console but X1 is also a great machine
some of the ps4 reviews i read had info on gaming as well as media/entertainment. i mean info like how the games look and feel to a player, resolution and user perception, joystick (and other input devices) performance in gaming etc.
I'm pretty sure MS went over the usage stats of the 360 and found that more and more people were using the media/TV/movie aspects. After all thats where the money is.
MS could sell half as many Xbox Ones as Sony but it will still be making far more per console in subscriptions and services. The money going forward isn't in games.
However, I don't think this generation will be as long lived as the 360/PS4. I see One.5 or PS4.5 models or total replacement within 5 years.
I might be getting both, but to be honest I might not get any, as I've become more of a PC gamer
One day Tom's will move into the 21st century. Apologies folks.
It is not a bad thing when done right, yes, but then you'll have a "jack of all trades" instead of a "gaming machine". I'm not an advocate of putting too many specific functions into one device until the technology is up to par with the individual ones. Smartphone cameras is a fine example for that: today we find "good" picture quality compared to a Point and Shoot and it will get even better down the road thanks to tech advancements. In the case of consoles, I expect SteamBox to trash everything else in the living room gaming wise first and other-stuff second, including the recent-out consoles. There's a world of horsepower of difference between the custom APUs and using an Intel + nVidia/AMD video card with an optimized OS (SteamOS, remember?).
I'll need a first hand experience with the XB1 and the PS4, but as "consoles", they must not disappoint. Kinnect is a feature you should/can put in a PC/HTPC with little effort if you want one (we're in a tech site, so this phrase is valid). Same for the EyeToy. Hell, even speech recognition used in the XB1, I'm sure is a derivative from the one in Windows that anyone can actually tune and use.
Cheers!
At the time being,IMO PS4 is a better gaming machine;whereas,X1 is a better entertainment system.
PS4 has a more powerful GPU so it should perform better in games and is $100 cheaper too;whereas,X1 tries to do more than just gaming and costs more.
For me,PS4 is a better machine because I only tend to play games on a console but X1 is also a great machine
We'll have more stories on both consoles.
some of the ps4 reviews i read had info on gaming as well as media/entertainment. i mean info like how the games look and feel to a player, resolution and user perception, joystick (and other input devices) performance in gaming etc.
The problem is a lot of the functionality is limited until the day one update, which the press samples did not have yet. We will have follow ups in the coming weeks. I'll be out camping for mine Thursday night
*Edit I hope this doesn't double post -_-
The Xbox One may be an astounding piece of technology but it looks fat and ugly.