You aren't addressing what I've said at all. You are just taking random forum posts by bkilian and acting as if they stand in for some sort of counterpoint you're unable to provide when these forum posts don't speak against my argument at all.
Here is what you seem to imagine I've argued: "SHAPE is so great devs will use it to its fullest and therefore will cancel out the 4 CU's PS4 has for GPGPU tasks. YAY Xbox!"
Here is what I actually am arguing: "Devs will build towards CPU parity with SHAPE in mind and as such will design their audio to run on the 4 CU's PS4 has for GPGPU tasks. Audio won't take up all of those CU's, but it will need to dedicate 1 or 2 to it in high end AAA games which do things like complex reverb and elaborate filtering (CoD, BF4, etc). Reason devs will prioritize CPU load parity is thsoe tasks (AI, physics) are vital to gameplay balancing and bug testing (aka notable adjustments to them costs lots of overhead $$$).
Which I'll keep telling you that isn't correct because it's not the lowest common denominator. Vast majority of PC owners don't have dedicated soundcards so their CPUs do the mixing and filtering (basically the norm for the last...forever). The same with PS4, Xbox one is the outlier in the audio department not the other two platforms. So they're going to build their engines around PC/PS4's audio abilities first. SHAPE will be seen as a bonus feature that will get used in place of CPU on XBO. It makes absolutely no sense to go balls to the walls with audio on one platform and then scratch heads trying to figure out how they're going to handle it on the other two platforms. And if by complex reverb you mean convolution reverb, you might want to research a bit and realize that SHAPE can't do that by itself and it'd need to utilize CPU resources as well. And they're not going to need to dedicate 1 or 2, since it takes around 2 CUs to match SHAPE under 100% utilization, and I highly doubt many multiplatform games will ever use that much. On that subject I defer to the knowledge of Bkilian over you by a quite a bit.
Hence, I expect real world usage comparisons will come down to something like 14 vs 12 CU's+7% clock advantage+display planes+DME's+eSRAM for graphics rendering, SHAPE vs 1 or 2 CU's for audio, maybe 1CU vs 150MHz clock advantage for AI/physics. In other words, the two will be exceedingly close in what is put on screen, how it sounds, and how it reacts. Evidence to support general conclusion: (i) various devs outright asserting they are equal or on par; (ii) Exclusives look on par with one another in tech across the board; (iii) Multiplatform games like MGSV look the same on both."
I personally haven't seen any multiplatform game running on both systems. Not that it would even matter I'm not dumb enough to judge the ability of either console on launch titles that are meant to run on a myriad of systems. But I am willing to bet that none of them are doing audio on CUs. I'm willing to bet BF4 isn, AC4, nor are any of PS4's exclusive titles. As for 14Cu vs 12Cu, you'll keep saying that and it'll keep not being true. As a great example, I know there is one title in development for both consoles in which they're not using pixel shaders for their lighting but rather compute shaders because they actually found it faster. So now we're looking at 18Cu vs 12Cu.
You are operating under the assumption that devs will be porting from PS4 to X1. History shows that devs tend to do the opposite (PS3 was lead platform for most titles mid-late cycle because it's easier to code to particulars than to port to them). Devs are highly unlikely to code their audio to the PS4's CPU only and then port to X1 where they suddenly have massive headroom that in your scenario they just ignore and do nothing with. Devs will take advantage of both console's designs and there is an obvious, natural, and straightforward way to do that, even if you refuse to admit it.
I'm not assuming anything, nor did I say they were going to port from PS4. Nor did I say they wouldn't do anything with the extra cycles they've freed up. In fact I very much said they would use those freed CPU cycles to do more/help do other tasks assigned to the CPU derp. When developers are building a multiplatform engine, they look at all the platforms and try to find common ground between them and build a base profile around said common ground. So they're going to look at PS4, XBO, PC and see what can be leverage and what can't. They'll look at PC and PS4 and know that both machines lack a true dedicated audio processor. So they'll do a less complex/resource intensive version of their audio on CPU; then in regards to the XBO version they'll move it to SHAPE and use those CPU resources on something else however large/small said resources are. And no unlike you've asserted it will not result in "gimped" AI/physics at all. You wouldn't even notice the difference, and some physics would be moved over to GPGPU anyway since every platform (XBO, PS4, PC) should be able to handle such.
So you can sit here and assert and speculate, but the people agreeing with me are much more knowledgeable than you and actually know what they're talking about. So how about you stop spreading FUD. Personally I'm done with this pointless back and forth, we have people within the industry and others who've worked on the consoles and even one who's helped design SHAPE all saying the same thing.
