It's not so much about price, though $599 is definitely a stretch for most, but about value for the money.  If Sony has a more powerful machine than the XB2, with exclusives that show off that difference in power on or near launch, $449 or $499 is not going to be a bad asking price.  Of course, I think Sony is still going to try to aim for $399.  They always sell at a loss and they will be buying in bulk, with the advantage of being the market leader, so they will probably be able to swing it.

Before E3?No way in hell.Sony cancelled their E3, and they wont do a 180 just to make a "surprise", specially when E3 helped them win gen 8.

I have provided evidence for many of my claims and counter claims though.

In non-DRAM limited scenarios. (I.E. 4GB and less) Fiji beats Polaris hands down.
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2396?vs=2300

The point was about comparing Maxwell to Polaris. And the point I made is that Maxwell, despite being built at 28nm is just as efficient/more so than Polaris at 14nm.
Whether you asked for power consumption benchmarks or not is thus besides the point.

4672 SP (73 CU's) isn't happening. That is an insanely large chip for something that is a mid-range part... And that would be a die-harvested part even still, meaning it's going to be an even larger chip than the CU counts would otherwise imply.
You do understand that costs are a very real issue for mid-range parts, right? You do understand that don't you?

Vega 7 with 60 CU's was already beefy at 331mm2 at 7nm. (Granted that's a die-harvested 64 CU part.)

For mid-range you want 200-250mm2 die sizes so you can get more working chips per wafer and hit the $200-$300 price points.

Navis focus is identical to that of Polaris. Acceptable performance per watt at an affordable price point.

Vega 56 is not a beast. Vega 56 levels of performance is mid-range, not high-end.

The same as I am , i also provided a logic how it's possible. 

But the scenarios is different on polaris and Fiji, and modern gaming with directX 12 (or even directX 11) and use advance Vulkan and Opengl and Cl  say the other way around . So Polaris toe to toe with Fiji at least it super close. 

It's possible that's why Sony wait for another year (2020) release date , yes cost will be major problem with that , but for a console that will last for 6 to 7 or even 8 years it's not that difficult.  Also Adored TV have made some calculation on Chip silicon size/price  possibility with the size of 250 mm2 PS4 Pro polaris and the possibilities of using the same size chip on PS5   , his calculation is on the spot 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgvVXGWJSiE&t=2223s

Don't bring vega 64 or or even vega VII , Navi even tho it's still has the same GCN it might have modification due to the small die. Hell Many people doubt Sony able to pull 4,2 on PS4 pro even you are doubt Microsoft able to pull 6 teraflop on 500 USD price console. 

Vega 56 is not a beast compared to high end GPu, but compared  to Polaris or even Hawai is big , and on top of that the benchmark shows it's an igpu (an igpu as powerful as vega 56) is amazing. 

Are you guys really comparing Polaris to Fiji??? That's like comparing a 1060 to a 980Ti, of course the older one would win that duel.

Tonga (380X) or Hawaii (390) vs Polaris would be a more proper comparison (Tonga is more modern than Hawaii yet older than Polaris, and Hawaii has more CU than both of them) (and I'm sure Permalite knows this fully well)

Btw, It think Polaris is Tonga's successor, not Hawaii's. Otherwise it would have been named 490 instead of 480. The fast that Polaris has less CU than Hawaii should also give that away, and both are effectively at the same performance.

Vega 64 ad Vega 7 are really bad references to make when talking about next gen consoles. And that is primarily becase they both use HBM RAM. The memory ontrollers for those takeup around 30% of the die space available in those chips!

If you really want to analyze die space usage ou have to do a lot better than that. Take the XB1Xfor instance, it has 12GB of GDDR5 RAM.. its memory controllers fit into a chip thats about 350mm² along with a CPu and  40CU GPU. Going from 12GB of GDDR5 to 24GB of GDDR6 (just an example) will take the same amount of space with regards to on chip memory controllers. Its been calculated that the Ryzen CPU will take about the sameamount of space on a die that jaguar takes right now. That leaves a gd dalaount of space for the GPU. 

Lets be realistic here..... what are we really asking for? Either a GPU with 64CU running at a clok of around 1500Mhz or one ofaround 72CU running at around 1300Mhz.  Fitting either of that into a die sizeof about 350mm² to say 380mm² willnot be a problem. The real issue is how effecient is the architecture, how much power will it draw.... how hot wil it get?

The problem is, if you calculate the space of the 40 CU in the One X and compare it with the 64CU in Vega 64, then there's just almost no difference. The Jaguar CPU part in the One X is tiny, even in 28nm it only took 25mm² (3.1mm² per core times 8) plus the space of 4MiB cache, and in 14nm would be even smaller, the difference would be very small. If we take 300mm2 for the GPU part alone, then 64CU would be 480mm2, almost exactly the size of Vega 64, which is 486mm² tall.

So no, the different memory controller will not magically shrink the chip by a large amount

If we are realistic, then this leak is a hoax, pure and simple. 64CU is the technical limit of GCN, and there's no known way around this, so 64CU at 1500Mhz would be the only option in your opinion. Even in a 7nm Navi like that would consume around 250W without even counting the CPU, RAM or any other part in the console.

In other words, the console would run way too hot and consume too much, nevermind the fact that the chip would be way too large.

I wouldn't rule out 72 CUs (73 CUs seems strange). That's twice the amount of the Pro which is built on 16nm. TSMC claims their 7nm yields about a 60% power reduction and 3x transistor density improvement compared to their 16nm process. Vega 7 is not a good example as it wasn't designed for 7nm from the ground up, which Navi is.

Your math is off......

Ok.... at 28nm the PS4 had a die size of 348mm2. This shrunk to 321mm2 in the 16nm PS4pro. Yet they were able to double the amount of CUs in the Pro compared to the base PS4.

But lets keep it simple..... cuse reading all you are saying its like you are saying there willbe no difference between a 16nm/14nm chip and a 7nm one. So how about you just spell it out so I am not confused (though I feel I already am).

What do you believe they will be able to fit into a 7nm APU that is anywhere between 350mm2 to 380mm2?

As for technical limits of GCN.... thas just wrong. The Problem isn't the CU count,the problem is the shader engine count. GCN5 has only 4 of them, and the maximum connected to each one is  16CU (vega 64). The last time the amount of shader engines were increased was I think GCN3 or 4 (can't recall), but they have been increased before. And even AMD addressed ths recently in an interview where Raja mentioned that with vega they considerred increasing the number of SEs but they didn't have enough time. So its not like they don't know what to do about that or its some sort of impossible hurdle to overcome.

And this power draw thing...... you do know thats only a problem when you are trying to clock (already ineffecient) chips as high as possible right? And the best solution is to just have more CUs and not have to clock them too high though that could add complexity and affect yeilds. Like nothing stops them fromgoing with an 80CU APU with the GPU clocked at 1.1Ghz - 1.2Ghz. While the desktop iteratons of the same chips could be clocked at 1.5Ghz - 1.8Ghz.

I have said this multiple times already....... until we actualy see working Navi basd hardware, no one (myself included) can say with any certainity what is or isn't possible all based on assumptions made from an older microarch.....

Oh just to add..... I don't believe this (or anyone so ar for that matter) rumor.

It's true that AMD hasn't released a GCN based GPU with more than 4 SEs or 64 CUs and there probably is a technical reason for that. However, scaling up the amount of SEs/CUs seems like a smaller change than for instance adding the FP16 ISA/foveated rendering or unifying the CB/DB caches with the L2 cache, which has been done between various iterations of the GCN architecture. I believe the 64 CU limit is located in some part of the GPU front-end and the main reason for not crossing that limit so far has probably been more due to the die size and power consumtion prohibiting it anyway, than technical hurdles to redesign the GPU front-end.

Though, I agree with you that the leak most likely is a hoax. For instance, I find it very unlikely with a 22Gbps GDDR6 memory speed, a 320bit memory bus and 20-24GB memory. AFAIK, the GDDR6 specifications only support up to 16Gbps. Sure, the specifications has some leeway and I believe Micron already is selling 18Gbps versions, but Sony has been quite conservative when it comes to memory speeds before and I find it very unlikely they would take the risk of overclocking the memory so high on a mass market product like the PS5.