His point about the 'most powerful' and 'balance' wasn't about either console but about attitudes. I just used PS5 as an example because it's the TF fight everyone's most 'worried' about. and it better fits the narrative of the first post.
That's from the second post. The first post, the one I'm talking about, didn't point to any machine being more powerful and was deliberately avoiding that because the message wasn't "one of these consoles is better" but "it doesn't matter what the TFs, are, you'll barely notice any difference."
You'd expect a broad message to be more accurate than specific words. The English is good and the ideas well presented. I just wouldn't go so far to put weight onto specific words as you have.
As for PS5 being slightly more powerful, that does also go a bit against the other info we have or expect in terms of cost and sales. To date, the principle theory for the consoles if they're different performance levels was something like a $500 12 TF XBSX and a $400 9 TF PS5. Now if PS5 is ≥ 12 TFs, we'd expect it to be priced similarly to XBSX. If that's $500, then how does Sony intend this to be the fastest transition for PS ever? Surely at that price, it won't sell as quickly as PS4? If it's $400, PS5 might well be the fastest selling platform, but then is it reasonable to think a 12 TF box can be built and sold for $400?
In my mind, there is no clear pointer to PS5's performance. There are two reasonable, conflicting theories, each with enough to support and undermine them to make them adequately believable and rejectable. One side is supported by solid data without context, and the other from personalities some people trust.
