Gamespot is becoming as bad as IGN with this stuff, btw. I wouldn't be surprised if they took big money from Microsoft to do this piece.
Evidence? Not towards Microsoft, specifically, but sure. I don't have many tools at my disposal besides logic. Let's test you guys. There was a deliberately insinuated "stealth plug" for a product in this video. Did you guys catch it?
It's the part where he asserts that the three guys who nailed the test with 100% accuracy did so because of "higher framerates". Oh really? How did you establish that? How did you "control" for framerate versus texturing, anti-aliasing, shadowing, or other graphical discrepancies that we know objectively exist? You certainly didn't show video of them explaining their suspicions. I am incredulous that if any of these test subjects mentioned that framerate was specifically what they noticed as differing that they wouldn't have simply aired that. LOL, silly rabbit, I don't even have to make assumptions. GTA V and Call of Duty have identical framerates on the consoles, so we can be certain framerate isn't what helped them differentiate the consoles.
So let me guess. Maybe you artificially imposed this narrative because Asus donated three 144Hz monitors to you, and they're keen to convince gamers that this feature which comes at a steep premium is worth the dough. So maybe you just wedged in a baseless claim towards their corporate interests with no validity or integrity whatsoever.
Oh, and 10/15 right from five gamers (only one who admits he pays attention to graphics and is confident he could discern them) represents 66% accuracy in a test where anything above 33% is a deviation above the expected probability of randomized accuracy. That actually relates a huge level of confidence in these gamers' ability to discern graphical differences, and again, this isn't exactly a roundtable of gamers like Linus.