If they launch the PS5 for $499 they might have a smaller cache SSD (up to 256GB) along with a 2TB HDD, but I can't see SSD prices collapsing enough for them to go for SSD only

Yeah I think including a SSD would drive up the price to high I just hope they the hardware is made with option to upgrade to m.2 SSD's 3000mb/s would help remove most loading and I imagine open world games would less of a technical challenge.

Hence why I thought I would provide clarification.

We do have an exact architectural layout of Navi. It's called Graphics Core Next. - That is the GPU architecture.
It's not next-gen, it's not a dramatic departure to what we have witnessed over the past 7 years it's an iterative update.

Next-gen graphics technology doesn't happen until AMD deviates from the 7+ year old GCN architecture.

You would hope that the Playstation 4 Pro can boost GPU capability by that much.

Considering that it is:
CPU Clock: 33.12%.
Theoretical GPU GFLOP performance: 127.7%
Pixel Fillrate: 127.7%
Texture Fillrate: 127.7%
Raw Bandwidth: 23.6%
 
The Pro also implements various features like Delta Colour compression as it inherits a few new tricks introduced into Tonga.
Which means Bandwidth could potentially be up by 73%.
And it's no wonder why most games are sitting around the 1440P mark with a good uptick in fidelity and framerates.

I never once claimed there was no performance gain.

The Playstation 5's performance will be a significant one over the base Playstation 4.
It will be a much smaller step over the Playstation 4 Pro... Which is the downside of releasing a mid-generation console.

Because Sony isn't investing into the development of chips directly for it's consoles anymore (And nor should they, it's prohibitively expensive!), Sony is thus at the mercy of PC's microprocessor development cadence, that means... If AMD stagnates, then so do consoles... And AMD certainly has stagnated... Part of that is because AMD made Radeon into it's own separate entity again after they combined them with their CPU teams... Plus they had to cut a ton of costs due to profitability so they lost a ton of engineers over time.

They are slowly reversing all that, but we won't see the real fruits of that positive change until after the next-gen consoles launch.

I didn't say anything about whether Zen 2 is a big improvement or not in this thread?

Every iterative update Graphics Core Next generally gets an uptick in performance when compared to the previous generation.

As for Polaris vs Maxwell... Polaris still looses to Maxwell in terms of performance... Where a Geforce GTX 970 will more often than not, beat the RX 480.
But in doing so, the Geforce 970 consumes only marginally more power... This is despite the fact that Polaris is built at 14nm verses the Geforce 970 being built at 28nm. Ouch.
nVidia is simply far ahead of AMD in the GPU space.

Things even start to look worst when you throw the Radeon RX 580 or RX 590 into the equation against the GTX 980... As AMD pretty much threw away the idea of releasing Polaris on it's optimal efficiency curve and just drove up clockrates instead.

Is 14 Teraflops achievable? Sure. Is it likely? Probably not for Navi as Navi is a Polaris replacement targeted for the mainstream and not high-end.

I don't think people fully comprehend how terrible AMD's GPU's are right now for gaming... For compute they are the ducks nuts.

Well, no. Everything is not possible, we are still bound by the laws of physics and common sense.
There comes a point where a chip simply becomes to large to financially be viable at 7nm, especially as the process is still fairly young.

That's because nVidia is far more efficient. It's chips are smaller, less power hungry and perform far better than the AMD equivalent.

Flops alone is irrelevant.
Back in 2010 we were playing around with Terascale 2 and Terascale 3 hardware for the AMD side... Which leveraged the VLIW approach... And that generally meant it had multiple caveats, some of which were performance-impacting in newer titles, but generally were extremely solid performers in titles that leveraged older techniques that were common in games during that era.

Ironically... I have such a GPU sitting on the shelf looking at me right now, that was back in the days before AMD threw out it's small-core philosophy and was on top of the game when it came to performance.

Increasing the ROPS isn't an easy thing either though, you need to do a full rework of the rest of the chip (memory included!) to take full advantage of it, that is costly.
Instead, with Vega 7... AMD increased ROP performance by dialing up the clockrates.

In saying that, I wouldn't be surprised if Vega 7 was still ROP limited, I know it is certainly geometry limited, despite there being a substantial uptick in geometry performance... But their decision to stay with 4x Geometry Units isn't doing them any favours.

I feel like Graphics Core Next is simply unbalanced for today's games and AMD needs to do a full rework rather than just iterative updates with a couple new features tacked on, that will hopefully happen after Navi is done and dusted.

400mm2 is probably the upper limit of what we can expect from a chip size-wise for consoles, irrespective of node... Otherwise chip costs will increase at a non-linear rate.

Flops is always theoretical.

The Radeon 5000 series certainly stood the test of time, that's for sure.
It wasn't until games like Battlefield started pushing more and more geometry that the older Terascale parts started to show their limitations in games as they were extremely geometry limited.

Well... We are also on the cusp of next-generation mechanical hard drives right now... Drives with heat-assisted magnetic recording, helium... And/or Multiple actuators and can do 500MB/s or more in sustained transfers.

Whether next-gen will leverage that remains to be seen... But even improving over the base Xbox One/Playstation 4's archaic, slow and terrible 5400rpm 500GB drives (That generally do 60-80MB/s) is probably not a hard ask even with budget drives.

Yes GCN is similar to all across  AMD GPU from Pitcairn until Navi but They have a major improvement ( Pitcairn to Polaris ) the improvement is smaller chip node, faster clock speed 

The same with Nvidia with all of their CUDA cores, like Maxwell and Pascal are actually the same but it just has smaller node from 24  nm to 16 nm

So i bet PS5 with Navi will have the same thing, even if you said " it's the same GCN ", with smaller chip Sony just can add more shaders unit or CU , even if you said it's limited to 64 CU , they can increase the clock speed , with more efficiency to reach 12 ,5 teraflop (vega 64 target) 

Also yes everything is  possible in the realm of logic, reality  and "HUMAN KNOWLEDGE  LIMITATION " hell nobody can guess what i am wearing now, neither you nor you and know what will Navi performance be, yes many expert out there who said Navi is "just another GCN, and then 7nm  will not bring anything , AMD are not at the current situation to change."  Yes they speak based on history data of bad thing from AMD result on GPU performance , they forgot AMD has done decent maybe not as good as Nvidia. 

Also the benchmark you are using is an old game crysis 3 , also some games is just play better on AMD GPU also you forgot on reality benchmark is bond to be different form one PC to another especially when it's just small few number . So yes GTX 970 -980 are equal with RX 480.

Flops is not everything, agree on that is like you mentioned that a millions times, just look at how Vega 64 12,6 teraflops compared to GTX 1080 which just 9 teraflops but beat Vega 64, but at current states  you mentioned before what we have for now is just GCN architecture , that's how we measured AMD performance "until" we have a new 7+ nm architecture.  

Little to no doubts, Anaconda will be behind Ps5 & won't be close.

Consoles are about what's feasible and not what's possible. 14TFLOPS is not feasible if you actually want people to buy it.

Probably 3 months to go before some Official words...I'm becoming crazy :D

Yeah 5400rpm or 7200rpm HDD's are just very slow by todays standard Sony could put a hybrid drive in the PS5 they are much more cost effective.

I have not heard anything about these newer mechanical hard drives, but good to see there is some still looking to improve on the magnetic storage system as i think has yet to reach it's full potential.

Duude 1TB flash storage is cheaper than 2TB laptop mechanical drive + 240GB flash storage. And why do they need 256GB flash storage? Between 64GB-128GB flash storage is enough, it can store the OS and the most important files for 1 game. So if Sony or Microsoft goes HHD + flash storage I assume it will be 1TB + 64-128GB of flash storage it makes the most sense to me.

But in the end I feel almost 100% certain next-gen will have 1TB of flash storage. It will probably be the cheapest and fastest solution for the entire next-gen. People need to think the entire generation and not just first or second year, flash storage will probably drop a lot in price for the next 5 years. About the other specs I'm still on 9TF navi gpu along with 8 core, 16 thread zen2 cpu(2,8 Ghz) and 12GB of VRAM maybe 16GB depending on price.

New rumor just came, PS5 will be using Navi 9 or a cut down Navi 9. Navi 9 itself will be more powerful than navi 10 . navi 10 rumor to be as powerful as RTX 2070 

https://youtu.be/-AAB0Pv7_A8