It may not be fine with the bloated APIs (OpenGL and D3D) and unoptimized games on PC but on a console with low level access to the hardware, it's more than enough. The lack of 1080p games on Xbox One (I believe the only non-1080p game on PS4 is BF4) is mostly due to its middling GPU.
The consoles have two modules, with each module consisting of 4 cores an a shared 2 MiB L2 cache. The Athlon 5150 only has one module.
What? The Wii can't even output at 720p. It's max is 480p.
Power isn't that important at these prices.
It's not similar at all. It has dedicated silicon for audio processing that consists of several different processors and is completely separate from the GPU part.
You can learn more about it here: http://www.vgleaks.com/durango...
The Xbox One doesn't use the GPU for audio, it has a dedicated DSP for it in the SoC.
It's not Microsoft.
There is none AFAIK. Unless you count FPGA implementations.
Not to mention that those developers doing the refuting are all very small indie developers making small 2d games. The anonymous developer in the article sounds like a AAA developer. The situations are hardly comparable.
Very few games benefit from more than 4GB of RAM. Most do just fine with 2GB or less.
More importantly regarding the parent's question, the second slide clearly shows that the CPU can do twice as many float operations per cycle than double operations.
pSX and ePSXe (and PCSX and many others) are PS1 emulators, not PS2.
The only working PS2 emulator I know of is PCSX2.
So, how are you going to emulate the ESRAM of the Xbox One on a standard PC? Or the high-bandwidth GDDR5 unified memory of the PS4?
I don't know if supporting Android apps is a good idea. Won't that kill any chance of having native apps?