Its a lot more than that bruh

I could show you info and details but I am too lazy.

I won't settle for anything less than 120 fps (locked) at 8k native resolution with super HDR+.

Turns out price plummeted thanks to the abundance of stacked TLC and QLC NAND rushing onto the market, making it a viable option.
Supply/Demand in commodity markets can be a fickle thing at times!
Happy that we aren't going to be using mechanical disks, but my trepidation on the use of NAND was for naught.

Could still be interesting how Microsoft and Sony handle expanded storage though.

Turns out I was right.

Well. It certainly didn't use Vega like many claimed. - But it did turn out it is using Navi, albeit a deviation of Navi as it's a custom design implementing aspects from AMD's next-gen GPU uArch like hardware Ray Tracing.

At least , it will be more powerful than my PC.

heheh necrobump!. yes, fun times!.

I said I would like to have 24 GB for a machine that last 7 years, but I agree that we most probably get 16 GB of DDR6. It´s just hope.

I guess you were saying 1.8 GHz GPU and that 1.8 GHz GCN is equivalent to 1.3 GHz RDNA. I guess we are getting 8 TF of that (RX 5700), but again I also hope that we get 10, something closer to a 5700 XT but with HW Ray tracing.

I wonder if Sony doesn´t prefer to slow down the clocks for better consumption like they did with PS4.

If you remember the HD 7850 and 7870 had 860 MHz and 1000 MHz while the ps4 custom GPU had 800 MHz.

1800-2000 MHz is pretty high, but we have to wait and see. I wish they get there. 

It won´t be the generational jump that we had from PS1 to PS2, or PS2 to PS3, but

from PS3 to PS4 the CPU performance increase was almost null. Here´s the link

http://www.redgamingtech.com/ubisoft-gdc-presentation-of-ps4-x1-gpu-cpu-performance/

With this 4-7x time jump and SSD support, we can have great worlds with many many objects on screen. 

you were speaking about GOW and you are right, but I thing about games like GTA V.... GTA V was made for PS3. That system had 512 MB of main memory which 256 were for graphics. The city of LA inside 256 MB of RAM. RDR2 on PS4 is amazing, and there we have 8 little cell phone jaguar cores. 

I guess 8 ZEN2+ cores with 2 threds each, and 16 GB of ram backed with a PCI 4.0 SSD wil be Dark Magic in Rockstar developer´s hands. I wonder what Santa Monica and Naughty Dog are planning. 

Graphically speaking we will get a bump, but nothing compared to the CPU side, because of the diminishing returns in graphics power. 

https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/167673-ps4-and-xbox-one-the-diminishing-returns-of-next-gen-console-graphics

But 6-7x is not a bad thing to have!. I´m pretty happy, of course I would love to have ray traced native 4k 60 fps games, not going to happen of course, but at least the PS5 will be better for 4k and more technologically advanced than the PS4 for 1080p when it lauched. Games will look better not only in resolution and thats great. 

I wonder if some people will think that this next gen will be good enough like what happened with mp3 and wma against CDs or external sound cards against onboard audio. I also think that we´ll get a PS5 pro down the road and maybe a PS5 ultra. Maybe after that there will be a niche PS6 but many will play as a service. In ten years, Networks will probably allow good streaming. We are starting that war with XCloud, STADIA and PS NOW. For me I hope there are still people wanting the box and speculating about the future, hehehe. 

Fun prediction: whatever the final specs are, there'll be press release shenaningans such as divulging FP16 FLOPS instead of FP32, or adding the two together, or comparing ray-tracing performance against the PS4 with a benchmark that'll obviously be horribly bottlenecked in the older console.

All so the clueless internet gamers go "see? it's actually 10 - 100 times more powerful!! take that naysayers!!" despite there not being anything otherwordly about it.

The necrobumps =p

Assuming there's no legal concern, I wouldn't be surprised to see GPU specs laid out much like how they are now, but with a 3 letter addition possibly.

GPU : 1.84 TFLOPS, AMD Radeon™ based graphics engine

GPU : 4.20 TFLOPS, AMD Radeon™ based graphics engine

GPU : 12.? GCN TFLOPS, AMD Radeon™ based graphics engine

With the way the GPU specs are laid out and worded, they may not even need to use "GCN" since they don't specify the exact model or architecture.

Not sure what the PS5 TF will actually work out to depending on what version of the Navi RDNA 5000 series they use. By doing it this way they can match up the PS5 TF to be usefully comparable for the average consumer, who won't know or care what GCN means, if PS even needs to state that at all. The numbers themselves will be what matter most to the majority.

Also depends on what the competition does. Whoever uses a calculation that get's them a larger number, the other will follow suit, even if that meant FP16 was used like you mentioned.

https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/explore/ps4/tech-specs/

Should also mention that... RDNA, or more specifically the implementation of RDNA in Navi is built on GCN's design principles anyway, just with a bigger focus on gaming and less on single precision compute (Aka Teraflops), hence why Navi has so much in common with older GCN GPU's.

It's like comparing AMD's Zen and Zen 2, Zen 2 is a massive deviation from Zen's initial design principles, but it's still built upon the same building blocks.

Good point. Yet another reason they could just leave out the details, other than in articles for tech enthusiasts, and just keep directly comparing based off PS4 and Pro for the casuals.