Yeah. If it was "fully Navi based". - Then it won't feature any of AMD's next-gen architecture features. Otherwise it's not fully Navi based.

This is false.
For doubling of CU's that would mean 36 CU's x2 = 72 CU's.
Graphics Core Next tends to have a hard limit at 64 CU's.

And a doubling of CU's for only a 1.35x performance boost? Ouch. Vega 7 actually has less CU's than Vega 64 and offered a substantial performance increase for roughly the same TDP.

As for TDP's: https://www.anandtech.com/show/10663/analyzing-sonys-playstation-4-pro-announcement

But TDP isn't actually power consumption...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=0wNoCnPxTp4

There are some serious technical limitations we need to consider as well.
It's not just about size and cost.

Vega 7 is 331mm2.
Vega 64 is 486mm2.

Correct. But consoles are also at the mercy of PC commodity prices... That is, when DRAM goes up in price... Then that price also increases for consoles.

Conversely... Because Microsoft and Sony are buying fab capacity from the likes of companies such as TSMC... When there isn't much spare capacity, then TSMC can charge an extra  premium.

I would give more credit to Anandtech when it comes to low-level stuff like that.

At the moment, 64 CU's is a GCN hard limit. - Is it entirely impossible to circumvent? Of course not.
But by going past that limit, inefficiencies come into play... And to get around those inefficiencies, some serious re-engineering work needs to be done to Graphics Core Next at a very low level, something AMD is not likely to spend significant time and money on to achieve when their next-generation GPU architecture is coming next year.

I.E. What is possible is mirroring the GPU and using an interconnect for communication. - The chip clusters themselves are still limited to 64CU's though.
It would be no different than getting two Vega 64 GPU's and running them in Crossfire. - You technically have 128 CU's to play with. - But each chip is still 64 CU.

Slightly ahead of the more sensible Anaconda specs.

There are 64 Stream processors per Compute Unit. That is a hard limit.
There is a maximum of 64 Compute Units. That is a hard limit.
There is a maximum of 64 Render Output Pipelines. That is a hard limit.
There is a maximum of 256 Texture Mapping units. That is a hard limit.
There is a maximum of 4 Geometry units. That is a hard limit.

There is a reason why Vega doesn't exceed those limits that were hit by Fiji many years earlier.

Navi's main focus will likely be extracting as much as it can from GDDR6 and implementing/improving on a few new tricks introduced with Vega... And hitting the Polaris price point/TDP.
It's a Polaris replacement... And not a high-end GPU, it's main focus is going to be efficiency.

Vega 7 is 7nm and didn't double anything except on the memory side of the equation.

Or... They simply might go with GDDR5X or GDDR5 which if taken wide enough can be faster than GDDR6 anyway.
All comes down to price/capacity in the end, it's a balance the console manufacturers will need to weigh.

Although, by the time 2020 rolls around, GDDR6 should be very price competitive even with GDDR5 and certainly have a capacity advantage.

The TDP i mentioned is 330 is a typo it's the same number that mentioned on Anand tech , so yeas PS4 pro is around 310 

Ok, but we don't have an exact architecture lay out of Navi, AMD might have something on their sleeve like more Rop's on single CU. It's the same design GCN but it's still "Navi" a next gen mainstream GPU to replacing Polaris. Even  PS4 to PS4 Pro can have a graphic boost by 2,5  times more. 

what's the point of 7nm if there is no performance gain. You seem pessimist, while historical data pointed different way. 

If you " theory " is true, PS5 performance will not have a generational leap, it will be even smaller leap compared to PS3 to PS4 gap, while PS3 to PS4 already considered small. 

If you said using Zen2 is big improvement , you said on others thread, it's not. CPU is not affecting rendered pipeline directly, it might rid of bottle neck but it will not affecting the shaders count etc. 

12 teraflop on AMD GPU actually quit low , AMD has able to bring 12,5 teraflop and more with Vega 64 back in 2016 . So we can expect more performance number in 2020 no even 2019 we can expected it more result. 

All High end GPU from 2016 will just be a mainstream GPU at the end of this year or next year.

Of course it'll be a smaller leap than PS3 -> PS4. Much smaller. That had 3 full node shrinks and a half node, which theoretically meant an 8 times √2 improvement in power consumption, transistor density etc. Now, however, we had 2 full node shrinks, and that's it. 4 times density improvement over the PS4, to put it simple. That would mean a GPU anywhere between 6 and 12 TFLOPS depending on whether you take the Xbox One or the XB1X as a ballpark. But the CPU is going to consume way, way more power this time around, possibly 30W instead of some 5W like the Jaguars in the PS4. So the margin of improvement for the GPU grows thinner.

That doesn't mean anything, though, a modern 8 TFLOP GPU could, say, double the performance of the XB1X for instance since there are many other factors in play such as bandwidth, APIs etc. This whole TFLOP thing is the new version of the "polygons per second" dick wagging contest that used to happen back in the PS2 days, and a lot of people feel outright insecure about the next generation consoles if they aren't like 12-14 TFLOPS like in their dreams.

Besides, zero chance next-generation games are going to be mostly 4K. Most are going to be checkerboard upscaled from 1080p - 1440p specially in 60 FPS games.

Yeah, these specs are not going to happen.

Not sure where you get the 2016 from. Last I checked Vega 64 was released in August of 2017.

Besides, zero chance next-generation games are going to be mostly 4K. Most are going to be checkerboard upscaled from 1080p - 1440p specially in 60 FPS games.

Yeah, these specs are not going to happen.

As for your "but Vega 64 was already 12 TFLOPS in 2016!!" thing... did you know we had 3 TFLOP GPUs from AMD like in 2010? Probably consuming less than 375W, by the way, and yet they didn't make their way to consoles? Huh huh.

Edit - AMD released a 5 TFLOP GPU in  January 2011 for the same 375W as the Vega 64. Which, again, means little since Terascale was so bad it's likely much worse than the 4 TF GPU in the PS4 Pro.