At some point designers won't be able to increase the level of detail even if theres unlimited processing power as they can't put unlimited work hours into a scene. I think it will be tough to trump even GoW in that aspect.

Obviously I'm aware that current gen lighting models are nowhere near "life-like", yet the improvements real physical lighting/path tracing can offer are pretty subtle at this point (save for reflections) - the only thing I really need is more bounce/diffuse light / global illumination as unnaturally dark areas/corners have a negative influence on gameplay.

At some point designers won't be able to increase the level of detail even if theres unlimited processing power as they can't put unlimited work hours into a scene. I think it will be tough to trump even GoW in that aspect.

Obviously I'm aware that current gen lighting models are nowhere near "life-like", yet the improvements real physical lighting/path tracing can offer are pretty subtle at this point (save for reflections) - the only thing I really need is more bounce/diffuse light / global illumination as unnaturally dark areas/corners have a negative influence on gameplay.

So AMD is going to totally crush Nvidia in one fell swoop along with PS5?.

Nope, lol. I expect Nvidias gpu architecture on 7nm transistor technology be superior to amds. But I'm feeling positive that Navi gpu that will be on 7nm will beat nvidias upcoming Turing gpu architecture that will be released q3 this year on 12nm. So an midrange Navi gpu on 200-250 die size with gddr6 will beat geforce 1080 ti by about 20%, maybe even more and will probably offer similiar performance too geforce 2080/1180. And we will see this kind of gpu in the next gen consoles.

I was concerned before that an midrange Navi gpu would suck and be an geforce 1070/vega 56 performance card.

That is 64CU's per chip. You can have more than one chip working together.

Source?

You haven't seem what CGI post as works on next gen.... it is really a leap jump over this one.

They don’t need unlimited power. Common misconception. It’s not just about specs. It is about resources. Where they put those regarding engine work and the like.

Considering how AMD's previous and current GPU's have fared, I'm not really sure they'll outright crush the 1080ti let alone being 50/50 with Nvidia's next line. Especially being super cheap for both consumers and 2 of the big 3 to afford making a £400 next gen system.

About your comment on Multichip, from everything I read it sucks for gaming and expect 0% chance we see anything like it on desktop or console. It's more for high-end professional work.

Really dude??? you want source for 3x transistor density increase.

https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/6713-14nm-16nm-10nm-7nm-what-we-know-now.html

Estimated transistor density for Tsmc 16nm, 28.2. For 7nm 116.7 (this is mtr/mm2 metric, no clue what that means, but suppose to be accurate). 116.7/28.2 = 4,13x increase.

Tsmc own website claims 10nm gives 2x increase and 7nm gives 1.6x increase compared to 10nm. That's total 3.2x.

http://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/technology/logic.htm

Even the stuff CGI works with isn't the ceiling.

We still need to get over the entire "uncanny valley" issue yet.

It is also the efficient use of those resources... Which is the entire development paradigm of console to begin with... Games will max out hardware early on... But they do so wastefully,.
It takes time to allocate your limited resources to obtain the best image overall that is possible.

Plenty of examples where games ditched expensive rendering techniques (I.E. HDR Lighting in Halo 3) and used that extra processing to bolster image quality elsewhere whilst using baked/pre-calculated lighting in the successive (Halo Reach) title.

AMD's GPU's a very compute driven, there are certain tasks that AMD's hardware will excel at.

Plus in a console it's really a non-issue anyway, developers will leverage their limited resources to maximum effect anyway.

Tell that to Threadripper.
It's essentially AMD taking it's multi-GPU, single card approach, but making it hopefully a little less driver dependent.

Don't get the wrong idea, I am not calling you a liar. I just wanted the source for my own reading.

But thank you.
I shall peruse it when I have free time. :)

Uh. Not exactly. There is diminishing returns when adding more CPU cores... Main reason is due to resource contention.
GPU's the same issue exists, just not to the same degree as the workload is ridiculously parallel.