I think the PC VR Defenders are being a bit absolutist here, a bit more nuance would be helpful.
1. "Far more efficient in the rendering pipeline". That's an incredibly interesting spin. Would you call XB1 games that run at 900p " far more efficient in the rendering pipeline" than their PS4 1080p counterparts?
Does the PS4 and XB1 include display or optical components in their solutions? Aahh, so you forgot that detail! This is fairly uncontroversial, pentile 1440p is reckoned to only have a marginal increase in IQ compared to rgb 1080p in March last year there was lots of dsiscussion on this, particularly in the more technical forums, and I never saw anyone particularly contest this. Does RGB confer a significant IQ adavatange at the same res, yes, so really what are you arguing about? In a Vive that 1440p image is processed by the display electronics to account for the lower mnumber of subpixels and this affects the quality of the IQ.
1. "PSVR can more easily get away with lower FPS, targeting 60, because of the hardware involved in the re-projection." There is no extra hardware either used or required in reprojection.
In PSVR Sony have a re-projection solution that is paying big dividends--which isn't true elsewhere AFAIK, 60 to 90 doesn't work too well apparently--I understand this is because of the refresh speed of the panel and the the sensor processing in the breakout box when rendering internally at 60 FPS. The pay-off is a 30% fill rate reduction. Arguably this is what allows PSVR to actually be succesful. Orientation latency is very low.
2. "Need significantly larger rendering targets for the same IQ". This is just untrue. The render targets are larger because Oculus and Vive want are going for a better VR experience, higher resolutions, higher framerates.
I understand Vive absolutley requires 457 million pixels/sec, that this is mandatory. We already know PSVR is getting big savings on fill rate due to RGB display and reprojection, doing the maths is illuminating.
3. "Hidden area stencil mesh equivalent". A Valve dev talked about that early last year and using it with Vive. Any software solution will be shared among all VR headset developers. PDF presentation for completeness.
I understand Sony have it (their particular spin-off) in their libraries, no one else does yet (AFAIK), its currently an advantage. Your disagreement here?
Sony has really made one good decision that isn't even used as a strength but rather to counter a weakness, the strip subpixel pattern. From a technical perspective there is no other feature of PSVR which positively differentiates it from the Rift or the Vive Pre. I'm not saying PSVR is bad, by all accounts it still offers a good experience, but the misinformation surrounding it is mind boggling. And from CES impressions, in comparison to the CV1, there is a very noticeable difference in quality.
Sony have made lots of intelligent engineering decisions that allow their "HMD" to get within touching distance (say 8/10, compared to 9/10 or 10/10): RGB panel, 120hz panel, breakout box, non-fresnel optics.