| HollyGamer said: Finally a wise man comment, i can see a bit optimisme from your side, all this previous people has been dark, gloomy and an underestimate comment LOL. |
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. 
