Okay. Lets clear up some misconceptions.

Next-Gen tech is mature, it's not overtly difficult to beat the Xbox One/Playstation 4 in regards to GPU capabilities, modern GPU's make the Xbox One/Playstation 4 look positively anemic.

Ryzen has been on the market for over a year.
Mobile Ryzen is using the Zen+ core.

Not even an excuse at this point when AMD is developing it's next Ryzen core.

Whether Sony will opt for an APU really depends on economics, if the chip is going to be rather monolithic, then they might take a thread ripper approach and have multiple chips on the same package as it would reduce costs.

Graphics Core Next is extremely modular all things considered.

You can have a Graphics Core Next 1.0 based GPU with Navi features tacked on... This is the same approach Microsoft and Sony took with their consoles.

That doesn't make it a new architecture, it's still Graphics Core Next, it's just a variant.

Pretty sure I read that AMD has a 61% profit margin on it's Ryzen CPU's, some a little more than that, some a little lower, these semi-custom console chips have a different pricing structure and thus shouldn't be compared to what is on the PC.

But if you think the consoles will get an identical CPU found on the PC/Desktop, then you are kidding yourself, that has never happened in the world of consoles, there is always changes to things like buses, caches and so on.
Even the Original Xbox with it's x86 processor had cutbacks to things like cache in order to cost reduce.

Please, the PS3s major issue was its price point. MS suffered a similar problem with the X1 not too long ago too. Sure there are other hooks but there really isnt much Sony will have to do. Make PS5 native 4K (which presumably is the idea), integrate VR more into the system (while not being mandatory) and load up on good quality software (obviously will happen) and they are good to go.

And actually, locking people into their ecosystem is pretty important right now. The subscription model hasnt been that effective in keeping people because digital was never that important back in 2002. Likewise, it was still pretty minor during the X360 days. Digital is a lot more important right now and actually making up a huge percentage for of sales for many publishers. To dismiss the ecosystem as unimportant right now would be short sighted.

With digital sales being more popular now than ever for consoles, combined with paying for console online services and the growing rate of "Live" games, being able to get people into your ecosystem and retaining them is incredibly valuable going forward.

Why do you think MS is pushing BC so much: the more purchases a user has with MS (X1, 360 and XB) the more attachment and history they have on the XB brand. Why do you think Sony doesnt budge on cross platform multiplayer? Because they want ppl buying into their increasingly more popular ecosystem instead of having the problem that ppl jump into MS/ Nintendo's and therefore having less users with them when next gen starts. 

The signs are everywhere for the importance of getting customers now and keeping them going forward.

Please, the PS3s major issue was its price point. MS suffered a similar problem with the X1 not too long ago too. Sure there are other hooks but there really isnt much Sony will have to do. Make PS5 native 4K (which presumably is the idea), integrate VR more into the system (while not being mandatory) and load up on good quality software (obviously will happen) and they are good to go.

And actually, locking people into their ecosystem is pretty important right now. The subscription model hasnt been that effective in keeping people because digital was never that important back in 2002. Likewise, it was still pretty minor during the X360 days. Digital is a lot more important right now and actually making up a huge percentage for of sales for many publishers. To dismiss the ecosystem as unimportant right now would be short sighted.

With digital sales being more popular now than ever for consoles, combined with paying for console online services and the growing rate of "Live" games, being able to get people into your ecosystem and retaining them is incredibly valuable going forward.

Why do you think MS is pushing BC so much: the more purchases a user has with MS (X1, 360 and XB) the more attachment and history they have on the XB brand. Why do you think Sony doesnt budge on cross platform multiplayer? Because they want ppl buying into their increasingly more popular ecosystem instead of having the problem that ppl jump into MS/ Nintendo's and therefore having less users with them when next gen starts. 

The signs are everywhere for the importance of getting customers now and keeping them going forward.

Of course it's important, but price tag itself isn't the deciding factor, if you bring something really appealing alongside with the product. Both PS1 and PS2 were more expensive than Nintendo's counterparts, despite the fact that they were the weakest of the bunch in terms of power. GCN (at least in UK), was laughably cheap at launch, with the price tag of £129, compared to PS2's £299. Percentage wise, we're talking the same price difference as between Wii and PS3. Yet, it dominated GCN, because it brought something else to the table ... proper DVD format (just like PS1 did with CD). In other words, there was a reasonable justification of a higher price tag. The problem with PS3 was that Blu-ray players of 2006 were way more expensive than DVD players of 2000 (inc discs), but they pretty much used the same formula. Combine both for less. Did Sony push the price tag too far? Sure they did, but they also thought that the blu-ray player would be the best thing since sliced bread (or DVD in that case) and people would buy it regardless. In their eyes the price was just right. For MS this "magic" product supposed to be a mandatory Kinect and for Nintendo, tablet controller. All of them didn't quite match the expectations, which doesn't mean that they would fail too if there was a broader audience for those extra products. Of course there are plenty of other reasons why one product becomes more successful than the other, like software, advertisement, design, general reputation etc. Price is just one of many (I'm looking at you, Apple).

Sure companies try as hard as the can to lock users in their ecosystems, but with consoles the extent of that locking is nowhere near as bad as in, let's say, mobile market. There's still more physical copies sold than digital and while it's absolutely normal to own multiple systems (and many gamers do), owning multiple smart devices just for the sake of apps is perceived as silly and not many people do it. Even that, that's not stopping customers to change their preferred mobile platform if they think they can get better deal somewhere else, despite the fact that there's lot more going on there than just apps. With consoles the turning point will be a generation of systems with no physical media. After that, it will be harder than ever to change the platform, but we're not there yet.

On PS2 vs GCN thing, I think PS2 wasn't 299 anymore when GCN launched and it already had the benefit of being on the market and having good support.

I'm pretty sure they dropped the price, year after the GCN launch (2002). I remember that at the same time they dropped price of PS1, to ridiculous $49 or something like that. 

Navi architecture is different from Vega

also the dice size is different as well.

Navi will be using 7nm , for now they are no 7nm GPU on market.

and what i mean mature are the dice size and their  wafer condition,  Navi is not even in production or in testing phase yet.

Yup Zen APU  exist on the market, but the price is still expensive and they have a little choice in the variant it's also it's still using 14 nm  dice size , PS5 will be using 7 nm.

Threadripper is highly unlikely for current market or in near future, you also need to considered the high TDP, Console usually use mobile CPU and APU is the best way for that. 

but it's still not have scalability ability like in Navi

And also we still don't have any news regarding the tech, but for sure it far better then Vega. SONY would have chose Vega if your argument is correct and use this on their ps4 pro. 

I know we are not using after market CPU/GPU, Because of price/ TDP/ Size/ efficiency (PC use a lot of chace bus etc for multiple computing for work, etc) and I know we cannot compared the price directly, because it's not a whole  market GPU/CPU but just the CPU/GPU core, but still it's still lack of  price option and variant option. What we have on the market now are 4 core variant  , and AMD might have 8 core in the second generation in near future . Maybe SONY are waiting for this.

Do you realize each of GCN architecture have their own number and code , GCN 5 is what Vega are using now, it might have some similarities, but as far as i know we haven't got  any improvement since Nvidia and Radeon invent CUDA cores and GCN. 

Yeah my bad.  No it's not just wafer dicing , there is more then wafer dicing if talk about stability 

OK

Agree that's why i mentioned it on the OP.  What they have now for SDK are probably Vega 

Reducing the cost by making it it more smaller 

Sorry if i didnt read 

Try to look at the AMD GPU road map, it clearly said "scalability " in Navi 

Yes it's the same with Vega, i never said no. Or even similar with Navi. But it's not correctly identical. 

That's obvious. Jaguar that used on PS4 and Xbox One are clearly not the whole chip they cut a corner to make it simple and reducing cost and TDP.