What? You're fundamentally mixing many different things, and you mistake insults and condescension for some kind of valuable tactic in a rational discussion.
Specifications are engineering facts that reflect the cold, hard reality of what the components are, what their clock speeds are, what their features are, and so on. This is indisputable like 2+2=4. That's not 'theoretical', that's measurable.
Yes, developers can utilize said specs in many different ways, and even ways that are unforeseen until someone gets creative and goes about utilizing what's available in a different manner.
Marketing and actual capabilities are basically unrelated. One can say all kinds of things, but the reality of what's IN the box will never change. And the truth is, what's IN the box determines your fundamental limits and performance characteristics. To deny that is bordering on insanity. Now does a higher level of hardware capability make things 'more fun'? No, not really. Game design is king. However, raising the bar on capabilities (yes, specifications) enables more detailed and fluid game experiences.
The 16-bit wars had a ton of idiotic marketing, yes. But does any of that actually change the fact that all of the 16-bit systems had drastically differing capabilities? The SNES was too slow to do justice to many extremely fast-paced titles. The SNES did have vastly superior audio hardware in comparison to Genesis and TG16 (obviously TG-16 CD and Genesis CD audio tracks were better still, but not usable for much beyond BGM and cutscene audio). The SNES did in fact have a vastly better color palette that made for more vibrant graphics.
Not only are all of those things factual in the material specification of the consoles, but they are factual in the reality of the games that we saw for each.
And of COURSE the best system is the one that gives you the most enjoyment. I don't think anyone would argue with that. That's why I still have a huge number of retro games alongside the new stuff.
330 Megabit - 24 bit graphics. Again, you're mixing marketing with actual specifications. The Neo Geo was hugely expensive and that made it largely irrelevant to the era outside of the arcade. The actual hardware specifications of the Neo Geo were not marketing however, the thing WAS better than Snes and Genesis in almost every measurable way in purely hardware terms. However, without 3rd party support, and with a price tag that was utterly insane, it was meaningless.
Taking it full circle to today, with the majority of games being cross-platform, and with both consoles being released at the same timeframe, yes, the specs WILL in fact come to light in actual use. They are not 'made up', they are not 'theoretical', they simply ARE what they ARE. That doesn't mean that Grand Theft Auto 5 on Xbox 360 won't be a better game than tons of PS4/XB1 games, for example. That doesn't mean that someone playing a game on a console that has slightly lower details, less AA, or choppier framerate won't be having JUST as much fun as someone playing it under better performance circumstances.
Now do you get it? I never said better specs make for better gaming, but you were the one who ended a post with 'Hardware specifications are ONLY the product of marketing'. I'm sure basically every engineer on earth would have something to say about that. And for that matter, if specifications fundamentally do NOT EXIST outside of marketing then : Atari 5200 is the exact same thing as an Xbox One. Don't tell me that their specifications and capabilities are different. The 5200 is easily capable of playing Forza 5 and Battlefield 4 online in full HD, right? Because clearly specs are only the product of marketing.