Yeah, the 95 watts seems too low for sure. Sure it's a 7nm chipset, two die shrinks down rom the 16nm Xbox One X chipset, but I don't see how they could get the power usage down from 175 watts on Xbox One X to 95 watts on PS5, just from 2 die shrink's, while increasing the tflops from 6 to 10-12, with a more powerful CPU as well. Something seems off there for sure. Maybe the 95 watts is for the CPU in the APU only, with an extra 150 watts from the GPU (Navi 10 is rumored to have a 150 watt TDP)?

How so? If AMD can manage to pull off a 1.5x improvement again, that would put Navi 10 at 10.6 tflops, which is within the 10-12 tflop range that Digital Foundry says to expect for PS5 in the video. If they can pull off a 1.6x improvement, which they have never done before to my knowledge, but might be possible since they have been working on Navi for nearly 3 years since Polaris released, that would put Navi 10 at 11.4 tflops (very close to the 11.1 tflop 48 compute unit number in the video). 

All I'm saying is, keep your expectations in check. Better to be pleasantly surprised if AMD does pull off a big improvement for Navi 10 over it's predecessor, than to be disappointed because you are expecting high end performance numbers from a mid-range chipset. 

XB Lockhart maybe?

The 14.7 was for the the max CU's possible on the GCN architecture, 64 CU's. Highly unlikely we would ever see a console with 64's CU's, issues with yields alone would drive the price through the roof. Radeon 7 has 60 CU's and it costs $700 right now. 

I can't see that happening. Navi 10 is a replacement for Polaris 30. Polaris 30 is a 7 tflop chip with 36 CU's, so 13 tflops and 60 CU's would be nearly double it's predecessor. AMD has never managed to release a new GPU generation with a performance improvement of more than 1.5x over the previous generation afaik. For instance, Polaris 30, RX 590, offered a 1.4x improvement in flops over the previous generation GPU it replaced, the R9 390.

Unless AMD has somehow massively improved their GCN architecture with Navi, I find it ver, very hard to believe that it will reach 1.8GHz on something as limited by airflow as a home console.

So far, their fastest graphics processor based on the GCN architecture is the Radeon VII, based on Vega 20 and made on 7nm, with a base clock of 1,400MHz and a boost clock of 1,750MHz. And that thing needs three fans to cool its 295W TDP.

So, as I said, unless AMD has done magic with Navi, I don't see how PS5 can have a 1.8GHz GPU.

Then also "  Tum Apisak "  leak that mentioned by Digital Foundry and Adored TV guy, they  agree about the performance of navi 10 will be around  Vega 64 + 15% , While Digital foundry said 1,8 Ghz with 64 CU  will be around 14,7 teraflop, 60 Cu will be around 13,8 teraflop, 56 Cu will be 12 teraflo etc etc until 32 CU. All Navi price will be around 430 USD to 130 USD. 

As in fact I am agree with your post "12 teraflop" but i am slightly more optimist that PS5 will be around 13 teraflop (60 CU) from 64 CU disable.  

Also, I just found this in a PC Gamer article about Navi:

"Looking at the Vega 64 vs. Radeon VII core size, we can get at least a reasonable estimate of what can be done. Vega 10 (Vega 64) at 14nm is a 486mm^2 die with 12.5 billion transistors, Vega 20 (Radeon VII) at 7nm is a 331mm^2 die with 13.2 billion transistors. That's 32 percent smaller with 6 percent more transistors. With similar scaling, AMD could end up with a 200mm^2 die with 40-48 CUs (2560 to 3072 streaming cores). Toss in higher clockspeeds and lower power consumption, with more memory bandwidth thanks to GDDR6, and the top Navi 10 part could be competitive with RTX 2070."

PC Gamer says they are expecting between 40 and 48 CU's for Navi 10. Based on the scale in Digital Foundry's video, that would be 9.2 tflops for 40 CU's and 11.1 tflops for 48 CU's. So yeah, I wouldn't expect more than 11.1 tflop for PS5 if I was you, unless Sony decides to wait on Navi 20's release in 2020 instead of using Navi 10. 

Yeah, the 95 watts seems too low for sure. Sure it's a 7nm chipset, two die shrinks down from the 16nm Xbox One X chipset, but I don't see how they could get the power usage down from 175 watts on Xbox One X to 95 watts on PS5, just from 2 die shrink's, while increasing the tflops from 6 to 10-12, with a more powerful CPU as well. Something seems off there for sure. Maybe the 95 watts is for the CPU in the APU only, with an extra 150 watts from the GPU (Navi 10 is rumored to have a 150 watt TDP)? 

One of the millions of rumours was that the base clock was 1GHz with a boost max of 1.8GHz. There is no way an AMD gpu at 1.8GHz blows 95 Watts only. At 1Ghz, it is entirely possible for the gpu.

What was XB Lockhart supposed to be again ? 

Is it also going to be used for Microsoft's xCloud too as well ?

There was a leak saying that Lockhart is a streaming console with a 4 tflop GPU, which is designed to run latency intensive tasks locally, with the rest of the data pulled from the cloud. So yeah, a 95 watt TDP could work for Lockhart maybe.