That depends on how transistor technology advances will play out ...

Which is why some people are probably wrong for insinuating we'll have a shorter gen when the underlying bottlenecks don't allow for that ...

I like it.

The "room for more graphics" is because Forza was running at Xbox One levels of visuals to begin with.
Which begs the question, would it only have Playstation 4 visuals at 4k?

Except. That Scorpio's chip only has 40% more transistors than the Xbox One.
I would not be surprised if Scorpio's chip was roughly the same as the Xbox One's chip in terms of fabrication costs when that first launched.

The 12GB of GDDR5 and the PCB with a ton of layers for traces thanks to the 384bit memory bus however...

Besides, if you have a large proportion of chips that are unable to hit a certain clock rate, then you throw more voltage at the problem, the result is more heat of course, but you get more usable chips out of a wafer.

If the Playstation 5 uses Vega and Ryzen. Then that console will be old, slow and outdated before it even launches.

Jaguar is garbage. Everyone with an educated opinion worth a pinch of salt knew it was going to be Jaguar or a derivative... Of course we wanted more, but that was unrealistic.

Why not?

Stacked ram is gaining traction allowing for faster speeds, larger densities.
There are processors that are just as cost effective as Jaguar but offer superior performance...
Cooling doesn't stop at Vapour Chamber...
Faster Mechanical drives are dime a dozen and UHD Blu-Ray drives can be just as cheap as regular drives. In-fact, many regular Blu-Ray drives just need a firmware update to enable it.

3 years is a long time in the PC space. Vega and Ryzen will be old and outdated by that point.

8K is next. 8K displays are starting to gain traction.
There is even movement for 16k displays.

5k is already on the market.

You also have the option of Eyefinity/Surround Vision.

This.

Why the hyperbole?  You're acting like those techs will be 5+ years old when the PS5 launches.  If PS5 does use them, then most likely they would only be 2 years old at that point, plus they would most likely be customized to use some small improvements from the newer tech.  Sure, they will be older and slower then the best of the best, but that's not what buying a $399 console is about.  And it would still be more powerful than the majority of PCs used by gamers.  Just like the PS4 was when it launched.

It's really no different than the Scorpio.  It's already outdated and it hasn't even launched, yet.  Of course, from the way MS is talking, they are going to be pushing this as a premium product, regardless, and at a premium price.  That makes me believe they want to turn a profit on the HW at launch, which is why we will probably be getting a $449-$499 price tag.  Sony, on the other hand, won't mind taking a $50 hit on the PS5, something they have always done.

A new revision of the cell would be awesome 

I really hope they try the 2 sku approach at launch. I think it would work MUCH better than the mid gen upgrade route.

It would lead to higher launch sales, and would also definitely lead to more consumers buying the higher priced model, in comparison to how many bought a Pro mid gen, since you wouldn't exactly be upgrading due to an entire new gen, and would know there wasn't a mid gen PS5 coming.

This of course would make the entire PS5 hardware userbase more balanced, and would make it REALLY easy for devs to see the need for multiple settings for both models. Also, having the EXACT same hardware tech, software, and API, designed for both models from the start, would just make things that much easier for the devs going forward. So better fps, res, etc, in games for PS5 owners, making the entire userbase VERY content with their purchases.

There are downsides like higher initial r&d, engineering, and production costs for PS, but those would easily be made up for with higher sales and non existent extra r&d and engineering costs mid gen. You would also have shorter gens, depending on how quickly tech continues to advance, which seems to be slower and slower each year, so it wouldn't be that big of a deal over a 4-6 year period in the future. There is also the fact that if XB launches their next gen console a year after PS5, your most likely the weaker hardware platform for 3-5 straight years.

I still think this would be the way to go, and would bring even better sales to PS5 than PS4.

Gamers still look at it as a Sales race even when Phil has mentioned many times its not a race. Its about making money. Scorpio isnt going to outsell anything and it doesn't have to because its not going to be a mass produced product like the XB1 or PS4. Its a premium product meant for console only gamers that want true 4k gaming.
Its all about profit. MS could undercut the Scorpio to $150 and claim they have the best selling system if they wanted to and they can and still be afloat.
Its why i dont base my decisions or care about sales numbers. Its all about these companies making money to continue to deliever us these machines in the future.

Sales never tell the true story.

Vega launches in 2017. Ryzen has already launched.

Next year we get Vega's successor. Navi.
Then in 2019 AMD  will release a successor to Navi.... And in 2020 a successor to that as well.

So the Playstation 5 will be using slow and outdated technology if it's based around Vega and launches in 2020.

As for the CPU, Ryzen should get a refinement next year with the Zen+ core with increased refinements every year after that.

I am a hardware enthusiast. Give me something modern, not old crap. It's why this generation of consoles has been so underwhelming from a hardware standpoint this generation, AMD not iterating fast enough hasn't helped things either. They stagnated with old outdated technology for way to long while their competition kept humming along.

There has already been such a chip.

Regardless, Cell is dead. AMD and Intel left it in the dust in regards to performance a long time ago anyway.

So your decisions are based on the cmpanies making money?

And you may say MS doesn't care about sales and how even MS themselves say they don't care about sales (go figure)...... but I am willing to bet you $50 that MS would probably love to be the one that is pushing on 60M consoles sold and not the one still trying to hit 30M. And being that they don't care about sales I can't for the life of me understand why they were and have been slashing the price of the XB1 as much as they have.... especially last year.

But hey waht do I know. MS says they don't care about sales.

But just outta curiosity though; doesn't more sales also mean more profit?I mean its not like sony is selling teh PS4 at a loss right?

Do you understand the difference between a Buisness Market and a Sport Competition?

Sure its a no brainer that all companies want to sell the most products, i also want to be the richest guy in the world, is my life over because i am not the richest man in the world, do i just give up on making money because someone else is making more money than me? Does Xbox have to outsell the PS4 to be a profitable brand? No. It doesnt. MS can give Xbox away for $1 for many years just to claim the title of best selling console in the world if they really wanted to win a sales race. They dont and i am glad they dont either. Sales mean nothing if your not making money on it.

Also you do know for the first few years of a new console being sold they are losing money on it. I believe only now Sony are making profit on the PS4, not 2 or 3 years ago. If every PS4 was sold at a loss *Lets say -$1* and than you have a console that goes out to sell 30m in its first 2 years.. what does that tell you? The real profit is in the software and the subscribers. We all know Xbox has a healthy subsciber rate and there own software is normally up there with the others, yet they didnt sell as many consoles as PS4 which is where the gaming industry normally loses money. 

I am not defending Xbox, i couldnt care less how much they sell. Sure it would be nice however it doesnt tell the true story. Iv been playing World Of Warcraft for more than 12 years. I am a subsciber since 2005. Is WoW the best selling game of all time? No, is WoW one of the most profitable games in history? Most likely yes. Actual physical copies/Hardware is all a bonus and slightly helps, its not a make or break competition. Theres no Gold Trophy at the end of a season on who wins the sales race. Its not a sport like many of you try to believe. Its a buisness. Like Cars. I own a Jaguar, its definifty not the best selling car in the world. Does it make it not a good car? Far from it.