Well sure 14nm won't be as efficient as 7nm, but AMD also didn't have PS and XB to cater to before 28nm which could push them into finding a solution.

Well a semi custom version of Ryzen would be expected, as well as the GPU. Sure your not talking a small die or power efficient, but the norm is usually something that fits that scenario just like the PS3 (minus the cell+gpu). It ran very hot and was very very power hungry until they shrunk the dies and came out with the PS3 Slim. Thats what I would expect out of the PS5 if 7nm was delayed. Unless they went with something like TSMC's new 12nm "half" node which is supposed to outperform 14nm apparently and is based on their 16nm node which is what is being used for PS4 and Pro I thought.

Makes no difference.

And the Playstation 3 was also super expensive to manufacture. - Remember how we were expected to get a second job to pay for it?
The days where Sony and Microsoft were willing to eat hundreds of dollars in hardware costs are over. - For one... Sony can't afford to do that.

TSMC's 12nm node uses a 16nm BEOL... And thus had better outperform Samsung's 14nm node which has a 20nm BEOL, highly doubt it will be used for GPU's or APU's though.
You are correct that the Playstation 4 and Playstation 4 Pro is built on TSMC's 16nm process.

Whats possible, really all just comes down to tech available. You have to try and look at tech as not just how much power the GPU can have, but everything in the box. The GPU, CPU, Ram, board, power draw and most importantly....cost. What was possible in 2016 allowed for the incremental jump we saw from a PS4 to a PS4pro. It also allowed for the shrink we saw from the PS4 to the PS4s. Basically, if sony launched the PS4 in 2016, what we have with the PS4pro is what it would have been for the most part. And the PS4's size compared to last gen was all due to sony and MS seemingly deciding to drop the loss leading business model. One that typically would have meant them making seperat CPU and GPu, which would also have meant they would have had significantly more powerful consoles than they launched with in 2013, but also significantly more expensive too.

Enlarge them for 14nm? It really doesn't work that way. Take the PS4 APU; on a 28nm process it has a 20 CU GPU on the chip (of which only 18 of them are activated). The polaris GPU that the PS4pro is based on has 36 CU. If they made a 36 CU GPU at 28nm the power draw and heat dissipation would be so vast they would need a PC sized gaming case to house everything. And the GPU alone would cost at least twice as much.

And it really makes zero sense to release a 14nm box when 7nm tech is either available or right around the corner. Don't forget that these consoles are designed to last for 6+ years. They will wait.

You seem to think that releasing at a specific time is more important than releasing with the right combination of tech. It doesn't. If Veag20/Navi starts trickling into the market in 2019 but have very high yeild issues, trust me... they will wait. Even if it means them waiting till 2021. Why would sony aim to hit 8-10TF when if they just waited 6-12 months they could use even less money to hit 14-16TF? Again, don't forget that these consoles are expected to last 6+ years. Incremental updates and all? everything is still tied to the weakest sku in the range. So having a great starting point is always a good thing.

Look at it this way. 2 fab process advancements results in new generation hardware. PS3/360 started at 90nm. In their case a two fold jump goes from 90nm to 45nm to 28nm. At 28nm we get new generation. Same thing now, 28nm to 14nm to 7nm. At 7nm we get new generation.Only difference now is that for the first time in console history, that middle jump (going from 28 to 14nm) didn't just mean we get slimmer cheaper consoles. It also meant that they could make more powerful versions of the same consoles.

But the difference between base PS4 and what could be the PS5? Is like an almost 8 times jump in computational power. 1.8Tf to 16TF. Thats what you call a next gen upgrade. And its not happenning just because sony is trying to go for more power, its happenning cause in 2020 or so, thats the kinda power they will get by default when trying to build a box in the $400 price range.

But the tech is there...... and the kinda specs you are asking for are ridiculously unnecesarry lol.

APU, Ram and storage. Those are three areas that improvements need to be made to dictate a shift towards a new generation.

with 7nm fabrication, we can have an APU with a GPU with well over 16TF. Compared to the PS4 launched in 2013, thats a 8.8x increase in power. And this is just looking at the GPU alone. You can expect to see at least a 3-4 times jump in power on the CPU end of things too.

What you are likely to end up with is a

• Ryzen+ 8 core CPU@2.5-3Ghz paired with 16TF navi GPU
•  16GB HBM2 ram with a bandwidth of 512GB/s-1TB/s
• seperate 4GB (single chip) of DDR4 ram dedicated to the OS
• 1TB m.2 SSD (this could be on the sata 3 standard averaging 500MB/s speeds or the nvme pcie3 standard averaging 1.2GB/s speeds.

2020 at the earliest. I think it will still take some 3-4yrs for 4K to be mainstream. As of now they should give PS4P improved gfx on 1080P.

6 is good enough. We just had 3 with PS4 and now get to spend another 3 with PRO. So I think 2019 will be the date for PS5. plus it's going to be Playstation's 25th Anniversary.

That wouldn't be bad, but it is still not really worthy of the PS5 branding IMO. I still expect the leaps we have had from generations past, but perhapps that is unrealistic going forward. People want the number of the unit to go up, and they want it in the 5 - 7 year range. If that is what Sony has to do to keep the most people happy, then I am all for that. I just know that it is iterative steps instead of generational steps going forward if we stick with that 5 - 7 year span. IMO, that shift should go from a single console, to the focus being on the OS and a family of products built around it on a scalable hardware architecture. The PS4 OS and tech could scale and last for 10 years until we could get a truly jaw dropping leap in tech, but it appears most people want half step, and then they can complain about how small of a leap it is between PS4 and PS5.

Just curious, what kind of specs would you expect from  a console in 2024?

Well if PS and XB say they need something by this date at the very latest and AMD can't make that happen then it would definitely make a difference. I'm not saying they wouldn't give AMD time and wait a bit, but you can only wait so long, and at what cost.

Yes PS3 was really really costly, but much of that was due to cell, plus adding a GPU late in the development, as well as PS2 internal hardware for BC. None of that should be an issue with PS5 if they stick with x86. The extra cost would go into larger power supply, heatsink, fan, shell size, box size, shipping, etc. All which should add some cost, but nothing even close to what PS3 did. PS5 could launch for $449 or even $499 and it wouldn't be that big of a deal. $399 is the sweet spot clearly, but at that price PS can't even keep consoles in stock, so charging a little more won't hurt them, so no subsidy necessary.

The 12nm node was just a what if. For all we know 7nm ends up on target, or maybe PS doesn't need to or doesn't want to launch before 7nm is ready and nothing may change that. If Pro is the best you can get from PS until 2020, I think many of us may have to upgrade to Pro to stay at 1080p(900p). That may be what PS wants or plans on anyway.

My points were more so based on what if scenario's. I agree waiting for the newer smaller node makes the most sense, but if XB were to try and jump ahead and take a more PC like route, which they might be doing, then they could force PS to try and get PS5 out sooner, just like how the 360 pushed PS3 to launch asap. I realize XB isn't magic and can't make a 10Tflop console in a One S sized box any sooner than PS can, but XB has shown they are more willing to put visual appearance and some money aside to try and get their product out front (Excluding Mattrick and DRM,AOL,Kinect).

If you added SSD cost to that, added VR capabilities built directly into the console, and added a 4k bluray player and full 4k capability all around, you wouldn't be all that far off the $399 price point PS has been shooting for. That could maybe even lead into a $499-$599 VR bundle with the headset. I get the feeling that PS is going to try and focus on VR more with PS5 since most agree putting all development costs into more performance is going to lead to diminishing returns as the upgrades/gens continue.

I don't think going from 1.8TF to 16TF is an iterative step. To put things into context, the GPU jump from the PS3 to the PS4 was around 5-6x. 1.8TF-16TF is almost 9x. Secondly, tose jumps become less and less important. That whole diminishing returns thing, but let me try and put this into perspective.

Look at horizon zero dawn for instance; find the best shot of the game in motion you can lay your eyes on. Now remember that thats made on a console with a GPU of 1.8TF. Now if that was made on a 16TF GPU, that doesn't mean that everything is going to become 8 times more. Like the character models for instnace, they may nt get a bump in polygons. As it stands, the bulk of that extra power will be used for nothing more than more pixels, more stability and a few better effects here and there. So we really don't need significantly more power going forward.

As for the last bit, in 2024/2025..... and this is assuming by then we are at a 4nm process. It won't be inconceiveable to have a GPU with around 30-40TF. Memory will probably still not exceed 16GB of HBM2 ram...... mind you not because they can't do it, hell they probably can even do it in 2020 (fun fact, if the PS4 was launched early 2016, they could have made it with 16GB of GDDR5 ram for the same amount of money it cost them to put in 8GB in 2013) but its more like its just not necesaary. 

We could also see 2TB/4TB m.2 SSDs.