Dont reply or quote to him, he is  a stealth Sony hatter. 

Finally, someone speaking English!

Navi is certainly a re-balanced uArch, the doubling of SE's over Vega is a very strong hint towards that... GCN was always very compute heavy.
It's similar to what AMD did when they took VLIW5 and made VLIW4, re-balanced the functional units for better overall utilization in games.

I think Variable Rate Shaders will be in, Microsoft is baking it into Direct X, so should be a uniform standard going forward with some luck.

AMD is likely driving up the clockrates hard at the expense of power I think. I could be wrong.
But I would expect power consumption around the RX 480/580 levels, it's not super high.

The increase in real-world gaming performance will be substantially larger than the increase in TFLOPS.

Anandtech has done some basic rough math and pegged it at almost 275mm2.

As for the Navi GPU die size, my eagle-eyed optics guru, @andreif7 took a crack at it based on some unpublished photos we have. What he came up with is 275mm2, +/- 5mm2. But this is based on a couple of layers of relative math; so micro-calipers may come up with something else

— Ryan Smith (@RyanSmithAT) May 27, 2019

I never expected Polaris to hit the high-end, so my expectations were more aligned to reality back then.

The RX 480 was a good chip, don't get me wrong... And it has aged well. But a high-end part it never was... I do own a Polaris GPU, so I am talking from an owners perspective as well.

Maxwell was just a solid part and nVidia refined it with Pascal.

The reduction in power is probably what Navi needs to bring to the table the most, AMD pushed up the clocks and voltages with the RX 580 and 590, so power consumption got a little out of control...

But it was the same with Vega 64, it's actually an extremely efficient GPU... At lower clocks and lower voltages, AMD pushed it super hard to try and keep pace with nVidia.

At the end of the day though, I found it extremely difficult to recommend AMD's GPU's for gaming towards the end of Pascals life because nVidia was simply the superior option in almost every regard, even sometimes price if you shopped around.
The RTX does lean things towards AMD a little, but not definitively... And certainly not in the high-end.

Anandtech can still get shit wrong (And have done so in the past), but it's probably a good ballpark number.
Either way, we will know definitely in the coming months.

I will probably be an early Navi adopter, I game at 1440P, so it should be the perfect GPU for my needs.

Rumor has it that nVidia may be updating RTX with faster GDDR6 memory rather than drop their parts to 7nm... So that may make things more difficult for AMD and will probably allow nVidia to continue to charge their nVidia tax.

That is exactly it.

AMD still has a faster Vega 7 part they can throw into the fight as well with a full 64CU part...

It's not going to "suck". - It's just not going to be some revolutionary improvement that some people are making it out to be.

It's the same with Zen 2... There is a jump in IPC, but the bulk of the performance improvements is actually thanks to an uptick in clockrates thanks to the  headroom that the smaller manufacturing process brings... And then AMD takes the IPC and Clockrate and pegs it as a "50%" improvement over the old part... Which whilst true, clock for clock the needle movement was actually smaller when comparing architecture against architecture, clock for clock.

CU's and Clockrate play a role hand in hand. You can have 18 CU's and have more performance than 36 CU's.

I think about 40CU's is a good place to be with a high clockrate, 7nm does bring with it a slew of advantages in regards to die size and power consumption remember.

There is going to be a larger emphasis on the CPU next gen though, it's not going to be all about the GPU. Actually excited for the Playstation 5 and what it will mean in CPU based tasks and how that is going to translate over to simulation quality of the worlds being built.

He's just  unique. lol

Got myself an i7-9900K with an RTX 2070 and 32 Gigs of Ram. So nothing too crazy, but it should be in the ballpark of the new consoles.

That's good news though. If they have to use a crappy GPU anyways there is more room for that 1TB crazy fast SSD of yours!

AMD has a lot of options relatively speaking if the rumors of 8 shader engines hold true. On 7nm EUV, they could even do with a 128 CU SKU if they wanted ... 

As for people raising an issue about the choice of game to demo Navi's performance, I don't imagine it'll factor whether it's AMD sponsored or not when just about every most likely potential AAA game benchmarks this year are coming with either DX12 or Vulkan so the playing field is somewhat skewed this year ... (RE2, Crackdown 3, Exodus, Division 2, WWZ, Rage 2, Youngblood, Eternal, Control, Detroit, Gears 5, Halo 2 remake, etc and many more that's probably yet to be revealed)

That is actually a pretty respectable rig.
What resolution you pumping?

Indeed they do have allot of options, plus they have more experience with 7nm at TSMC than nVidia, so that advantage can't exactly be understated.
In saying that, Navi is still going to be a pretty average GPU all things considered... And won't be besting nVidia at 12nm (Aka 16nm Enhanced.)

8 SE's even with 64 CU's and a beefy clockrate should result in a chunky uplift though, especially backed by GDDR6 on a 256bit bus.

I believe we both want to see a powerful PS5.

I can understand the gloom though and I suspect it depends a lot on the expecations. I didn't expect Navi to be a Turing killer, AMD is/was just too far behind nVidia for that. So compared to RTX, Navi is somewhat a disappointment since it doesn't seem to beat an eight month old architecture, not even when having a process node advantage. However, compared to Vega it clearly seems to be a step forward and indicates the entire PS5 GPU will be beefed up, not just some parts of it, and combined with the performance/watt improvements it tickles my mind to see how far they will be able to push the PS5 GPU.

Unfortunately, AMD is very vague about Navi/RDNA and I suspect there are a lot of misinformation, even from usually reliable sources like AnandTech, going around. For instance, I've not found any indications that the IPC improvement is as high as 25%, which would be quite remarkable. AMD claim there is a 1.25 performance/clock improvement compared to GCN, but that's a different metric than IPC. So either the journalists at AnadTech have spoken to AMD at Computex and the IPC improvements happens to coincide with the 1.25 performance/clock improvement or their information isn't based on facts but (at least in some part) incorrect assumptions.

What is more worriesome though is that AMD don't disclose which GCN based card they have used to come up with the 1.25 performance/clock improvement. In a footnote they state it's the geometric mean for a benchmark consisting of 30 games rendered at 4K with 4xAA. If they have compared Navi to a Vega card, then a 1.25 performance/clock improvement is exceptionally good, but it's more likely they have compared it to a midrange Polaris card and then a big portion of the performance improvement simply comes from the increased bandwidth of Navi and not the RDNA architecture. Similarly they are vague about how they have measured the 1.5 performance/watt improvements. Is that compared to a Vega 14nm, Vega 7nm, Polaris 12nm or Polaris 14nm?

I believe we'll get a lot more info at E3 and until then there will probably be a lot of wild speculations, both optimistic and pessimistic.

Well, so far I'm pleased with the provided numbers. They're not great or mind blowing, but they offer a nice performance increase over AMD's current parts.

We have to remember that Navi is replacing AMD's current mid range cards, the RX 480/580/590s, that competed with Nvidia's GTX 1060. it was never meant to be a high end part. And yet we see the 5700 being compared with the RTX 2070! Even if the end product ends being with 10% of the Nvidia card in real world benchmarks, it will already be a massive improvement over what AMD has now.

And there's also an interesting question: this is the 5700 chip/card, will there be a 5800 part?

By the way, regarding power consumption, there will be two cards that will use 180 and 225W: https://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-5000-navi-gpu-7nm-asrock-two-variants-report/

225W would be pretty bad. The card they've shown should have been 150W at most if they're willing to catch up with Nvidia. 180W and it's just back to the Polaris, pre-Turing status quo.