Yet 3rd party devs didn't know about it. And we also have a VGLeaks rumor claiming Durango's specs were adjusted several weeks back. I won't concede anything as I'm not in a position to do so atm. Thus far I don't see any arguments being presented that don't extensively rely on assumptions that themselves are fragile. Just because you assert an assumption is valid or rock solid or 'highly likely' doesn't make it so.
I don't care how many times you repeat these assertions/assumptions or point to others repeating them. Having a discussion on this kind of topic should entail multiple perspectives and multiple hypotheses until we get more detailed info form MS to incorporate into our considerations.
Speculations isn't the same thing as an assertion. Speculation comes from pooling together information and putting pieces together in a way that seems to fit and explain their origins. Assertions are done without pooling together information and instead rely on the circular logic of assuming something is true and then using that to justify what you've assumed.
Some of you guys need to learn what words mean before you throw them around at others in efforts to dismiss them. You are asserting things, not me.
And I've been correct on a large set of things as can be seen from my posts at TXB years back outlining how they'd approach this coming gen. I'll be sure to pop the cork for both of us the moment they unveil clock speeds. :smile:
You asked about why MS would want to up clocks. I'd agree it would be desperate on their end, likely informed by marketing agendas. An increased clock would give them the ability to tell consumers their box has a better CPU and an on par GPU while having more bandwidth. Will they care? Before the reveal I'd have said no, but then I also expected them to tell us all about how their box had chips every bit as fast as PS4's and they didn't. That's what got me curious about this whole thing.
Boglin,
I'm not saying my hypothesis is correct. I'm saying it needs vetting and thus far efforts to do so rely on the same assumptions/assertions my hypothesis calls into question in the first place. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat those assumptions. You can run around that circular logic all day long. Doesn't get you anywhere.
My hypothesis fits with the various disparate info we have and isn't as logistically implausible as you think it is imho. You are welcome to disagree, but do so without confusing who is assuming/asserting what in the process.