Not that i agree with the dream Teamsilent has... or that I disagree with what you are saying about PC always being ahead....

but wasn't the PS4 back in 2013 the first consumer product to come with 8GB of GDDR5 ram? The first PC GPUs to pack that much ram started showing up in 2014.

I don't know where you got this 32GB idea from...... but hear it now... its IMPOSSIBLE for the PS5/XB2 to have that much Ram. Even if they launched at $499.

Other things to consider, what are they going to do with all that Ram, how are the laoding time going to be? Cause having that much Ram warrants having at the very least an SSD in every console as standard.

The most we will see in those consoles is 24GB. And even that is highly unlikely, personally I have my money on something like 18GB/20GB GDDR6 coupled with 4/6GB LPDDR4.

Oh I agree. 

But right now ethere are leaks already of a version Nvidias next GPU using 12GB of GDDR6. And I am certain before the end of next year we will see at least one GPU pushing 16GB of GDDR6.

For 2020 those GPUs will be definately pushing something higher than 16GB, so say 20GB. All I am saying is that if history is any indication, you can find at least 2-4GB more GDDR6 ram in consoles than whatever is the highest capacity you can find on PCs around the year those consoles launch. So maybe what the best out there on PCs at the end of 2019 is a good indication of how much ram we may be getting in consoles.

I'm just looking at the layouts possible, and thinking about how things would play out for another 7 - 10 years. I expect PS5 to have an SSD, and preferably it will be a M.2 NVMe SSD. 

If they can't deliver a next gen Memory and Storge set up, they shouldn't even release a PS5 yet. If they launch PS5 next year or 2020, with 16GB of RAM and a HDD, they are going to get steam rolled by Xbox and set top boxes. Apple and Amazon will have no problem putting out Apple TV and FireTV devices a year later, that completely trash PS5 at a lower price. 

Sony is not in a position to under deliver with PS5. They are not only facing competition from just Microsoft and Nintendo. They have set top boxes, smartphones, and streaming services that are going to be attacking them on all fronts. If PS5 is a half hearted pile of garbage, that even streaming can top qulaitywise, then Sony is in major trouble. They have to make PS5 a viable option for those that want to play games natively. If they don't then they have no place in the market.

Streaming is going to become a real threat to consoles. If PS5 does not push the bar, EA, Ubisoft, and many others will allow people to stream higher quality versions directly from them, with better graphics, better framerate, and faster loading. Sony has to deliver a PS5, that can not be massivly overshadowed by streaming and set top boxes a matter of months after release.

Good thing you said "consumer".
Because there were actually GPU's that had 12GB of GDDR5 memory in 2013.

Either way, I have already broken all that down in one of my prior posts anyhow.

Mechanical Disks still have a massive Price/Capacity advantage over NAND based approaches, consoles are all about being cost effective first remember.

There are still massively faster mechanical disks than what we saw in the Playstation 4/Xbox One devices, they aren't SSD speeds... Sure. - But don't discredit them just yet, there is still a big amount of room for improvement on that front.

Apple TV and the like tend not to have monolithic GPU's either.

He isn't actually wrong, but he also doesn't paint the entire picture.
Also. Regardless of Gamersnexus's track record... You never place all your eggs in one basket, otherwise you will end up with egg on your face, it is always better to get more than one source.

Also... Down the bottom he iterates (And what me and CGI have been trying to hammer down) is the issue of cost.
And specifically... How costs may actually remain stagnant or possibly even increase... Heck he even mentions that Micron is now going to focus on profits rather than Marketshare, which just says it all, doesn't it?

Not to mention DRAM manufacturers will often retool and focus on higher profit NAND which is seeing constant increases in demand, which means less DRAM product in the channels, thus keeping prices high.

It's a shit situation... Back in 2010 I could buy 32GB of Ram for like $180 AUD.
Today? $500 AUD.

AMD needs to invent the GPU first. lol

Their fastest part is a competitor for the Geforce 1080... But will also not happen for a console because of how large, hot and power hungry Vega 64 is.

Not to mention that 4GB GDDR6 will be rolling out in a few years time.

I think we can confidently say that in a non-Premium console... They will stick with a 256bit memory bus as that offers the best price/performance.
Larger the memory bus the more traces and thus layers you require on the motherboards PCB, the more complex the memory controller and power delivery.

Which is fine for a $650 AUD Xbox One X, but not fine for a $299 AUD Xbox One S.

nVidia does employ 192/284bit memory buses more often than AMD though, so 12GB for the next nVidia GPU wouldn't be out of complete expectation.

It depends on if they use only GDDR or a mix as Intrinsic has suggested. 16GB GPUs should be pretty normal by 2020, and that is just VRAM, not to mention the additional 16GB or much more DDR a PC would have. I can see 24GB GDDR with 8GB DDR, or just a single 32GB GDDR pool. This is total system RAM, not just VRAM.

Got to be quick, but I think 32GB on a 256 bit bus is a good choice for the base PS5. 48GB on a 384bit bus would be a great mid gen update.

Which mechanical disks? I have checked information about Hamr and Mamr Disks but I don't think they will be ready in time for next-gen. Predicting what hard drive ps5 will use is difficult. Eurogamer says mechanical drives are too slow and I have come to the conclusion that a hybrid solution with 1TB mechanical disk with 256GB ssd is useless.

Right now 1 TB SSD seems to the most reasonable guess what ps5 will launch with.

If they stick with UMA, the GDDR must work again as both graphics and system RAM, so it's not very precise to compare that amount of RAM with the amount used in a discrete graphics card. Obviously a GDDR based UMA offers far greater graphics performance than cheap DDR based UMAs used in cheap PCs, while offering almost the same advantages in design simplicity, and it proved to be a great solution for a console, but should it become too expensive if RAM prices don't drop quick enough for the amount of total RAM they wish to have next gen, they could settle for going back to a classic separate memories solution, and in this case, even 12GB GDDR for the graphics would be a very good amount, while for system RAM we could maybe get 16-20GB latest DDR4 or early DDR5. This if obviously a possible scenario if they end up deciding that 16GB wouldn't be enough, as we all agree that 16GB GDDR UMA is definitely feasible and viable.  In the end, anyway, the reality is that the ridiculous RAM price situation forced devs to stop the growth of at least games minimum specs for RAM size, and as the quality of the best games increased anyway, this most probably means that lower level devs made the latest versions of game engines more CPU/GPU-intensive while keeping them not too much more memory-intensive than the previous versions, at least in the low and mid settings

That is already a tempered expectation. I am working my way down to dealing with the possability of a measly 16GB of total system RAM. My expectations for next gen based on previous PlayStation generations would put PS5 in the relm of 100GB @ 1TB/s. That obviously is not going to happen. 24GB on a 384bit bus or 32GB on a 256bit bus for the launch model is at least possible, looking at what will be available by 2020. I still would prefer they wait to launch next gen until they can deliver the same kind of improvement we have seen in the past though.

 At this point I am ready to come to the reality that console generations are a thing of the past, and the Smartphone style of numbered systems will be the future. On that same note, I am also open to the idea of streaming if consoles stop being worthwhile investments for gaming. The one saving grace for physical hardware for me would be VR, since it requires response times, that are just not going to be possible via streaming for quite a few more years.

1TB M.2 (user upgradable with both SATA and NVMe) is the minimum I would hope for on PS5. That currently sits at anywhere from $200 to $400 by itself. SSD prices are falling though, with massive increases to maximum capacity on the horizon. Any way you cut it though, I feel like this generation is being rushed along. It is going to take everything going very nicely throughout many aspects of tech, to deliver even half hearted next gen consoles by 2020. Otherwise, I fear we are going to end up with some pretty pathectic boxes label with the PS5 and XB4 logos.

I have no issues with Ryzen, but I question,

Can Navi deliver ~18TFLOPs while staying in a console Watt/Price level?

Are they going to be able to deliver what I consider the minumum unacceptable level of RAM, which to me would be 32GB?

Will they be able make the move to Solid State Memory?

Looking at what I would still not consider a worthy "PS5", but I could live with; Ryzen 8 Core (~$200), Navi @ 18TFLOPs (Nothing currently but Vega 64 - HBM ~$400), 32GB GDDR6 (Current (1GB) GDDR5 Module pricing ~$280), and 1TB M.2 ($200 best case scenario). You're looking at roughly a $1,000 right now, for just those components, with no current 16nm GPU even capable of 18TFLOPs. Can they get this down to $400 - $500 by 2020? 

It is going to be pretty damn tight to squeeze together that package into a full console by 2020. I still like the idea of Pro 2 next year, with true next gen consoles in 2022, but everything points to the arrival of what I would consider a Pseudo PS5 in either 2019 or 2020. Brace yourself for Ryzen 6 Core + Navi @ 12TFLOPs + 16GB GDDR6 + 2TB HDD. 

Too slow? Hardly.
The current crop of consoles are using spinners that are simply to slow. (I.E. 5400rpm drives.)

A decent mechanical quality disk can hit 215MB/s in sustained transfer rates... The Xbox One X struggles to even hit half that... The base Xbox One a third of that.

And a 1TB SSD? Really? Have you even thought about the cost involved? The ADATA 1TB SSD is the cheapest SSD I can find at $318 AUD. The Xbox One S is $288.
Do you see the problem there?
For comparative sake... A 1TB rust spinner is $55 AUD.
Or a 6TB rust spinner is $279 AUD.

It's like the Xbox Scorpio rumors all over again when everyone was claiming the Xbox One X was going to be pushing Ryzen and have an SSD. - It was never going to happen.
Cost. It's the consoles Achilles heel, only so much you can get into a low-cost box you know.

Regular DDR is just as stupidly expensive as GDDR right now. 32GB of DDR4 is $500 AUD. The Xbox One S. $288.
...And that ain't even the best DDR4, but it is one of the cheapest 32GB kits.

I think in regards to Ryzen... We will see a single complex leveraged. For Ryzen 2, that could mean 6 cores/12 threads.
Which is still a shit ton better than 8 Jaguar cores.