I cannot see them doing those specs at $500, unless they are taking a massive loss per unit, which would not make much sense. But even so, I do believe $500 is a steep asking price, so they really need to justify it if they want to have the volume sales they got with PS4. I can't see this rumor being true.

Gamers will work five jobs to afford it...

Well, it looks great on the tech side, but price and games are also important. And this rumour makes at least price a risk. Games may be well, Nintendo showed that only one out of the park level great game is enough to sell a console. Sony probably securing a lot of 3rd-party support probably needs way less.

Not that I'm aware of.

A Vega 64 has 64 ROPs that's true, along with 4096 Unified Shaders, 256 TMU and organized into 64 CU. I think remembering the actual limit comes from the Shader logic limiting those to 4096, but due to how it's organized that results into 64 CU, while the ROPs could be increased. Hence why there are rumors about an increased number of ROPs in Navi but no increase in CU.

14nm to 7nm doesn't half the size, even though the naming scheme implies it. But those names are decoupled from the actual sized since over 15 years now (since they got smaller than the wavelength of the visible light, which is around 300nm in fact). Vega VII has almost the same amount of transistors as a Vega 64 but is actually only 32% smaller. I calculated the 500mm² by taking the Vega VII plus 65% of the size of a Zen Cpu, which would be 456mm². But to reach those 14TFlops, Navi would need quite a few extra functions, so I added 10% to give space for those, which results in 500mm².

PS4 Pro chip is about the same size as the original PS4 chip, which is about 350mm². A Vega VII, which is produced in 7nm, is already is 331mm². How do you want to reach that power in a ~350mm² package if 95% is already occupied by the GPU - and that GPU isn't even strong enough for the leak. While Navi could be more powerful, it will need more transistors, and thus die space, for that. Getting that much power out of such a small chip is pretty much impossible with the 7nm process.

I do often watch AdoredTV (I love AMD and all my desktop PCs had AMD CPU except one (the original Pentium MMX, as AMD had nothing to counter that. I had an AM286, AM486 DX-40, K6-II, Athlon 64 3000+ (sadly only on 754 board, so I couldn't upgrade without a new board) and finally an Athlon X4 635), but I don't believe his prices. They would not unly undercut Intel's CPUs by an unreasonable large margin, but also undercut their own chips by a large margin, which doesn't make sense. They wouldn't be able to sell any of their older chips anymore unless they cut the prices by over 60% in some cases, which is insane. AMD would ruin themselves with those prices, so don't expect AMD to practically give their chips away.

It definitely can be since you end up shading indirect contributions to light that don't appear within the camera but the other big bottlenecks to ray tracing is BVH traversal and ray-triangle intersection tests so it's ideal that they be fixed function for higher performance and efficiency ... 

There could be some specialized instructions for making these things optimal but doing so could lead to higher power consumption. During this generation, even though some cases of GPU compute rasterization could be made it was still arguably more performant to use the rasterizer on the consoles ... 

Let's at least figure out a way to get rid of the rasterizer first before we even tackle ray tracing since it's a much harder problem. Without those specialized instructions, I don't think ray tracing could be all that performant on older parts ... 

We'll never be able to get rid of the texture sampler in like 10 years, in maybe 20 but even then having them fixed function will give programmable shaders a good run for their money too ...

Sounds like a reach honestly.

I would be extremely pleased with those specs, by the looks of it. Hot damn, 14 TFLOPS. That even beats out my PC which has maybe 8 TFLOPS.

Yeah, that Q1 2020 launch pretty much marks it as fake. So we're going to have an ultra powerful PS5, AND it launches early? This would be like PS4 Pro launching Q1 2013 or even 2012. Way too good to be true.

Actually March 2011 (March 8 to be exact), and it's a dual GPU, the Radeon HD 6990, so those 5 TFlops are highly theoretical

Terascale was actually not nearly as bad as you seem it to remember, especially the 4xxx and 5xxx series did compete pretty well with NVidia. In fact, at the time AMD was making fun of NVidia being so unefficient and running hot (Termi, anyone? Here in a Hitler rant ^^) that they even made videos about it (can't find them now). GCN was of course much better, but Terascale wasn't that bad either.

You could also have come with the 7990, also a dual GPU, but with 8TFlops in May 2013. Or that a 12TFlops GPU existed in 2014 already (R9 295X2, 500W TDP). Or a 16TFlops GPU in April 2016 (Radeon Pro Duo, 350W TDP). All of them are dual GPU, btw, which makes the TFlops highly theoretical.

Are they gonna show "target" demos again?

Using CGI?

Yeah I'm just thinking that with how games are getting so big the old HDD are up to the task anymore m.2 SSD support would be strange if Sony doesn't support SSD better this time.