That would be awesome and I have to imagine it would help having less moving parts in there when it comes to cooling and durability

Really?  But the Microsoft ceo is into gaming and they seem pretty obsesssed with power since the X.  Plus they have more money to burn at the front end of the gen

I highly doubt that Sony nor MS is willing to go into the whole to one up each other on the power of their consoles.  I believe MS learned their lesson and so did Sony.  Price matters big time with a new console.  Both MS and Sony will have a system that can be sold for around 400 bones give or take a few pennies.  Neither company is going to go over this sweet spot to much and thus that range will dictate the hardware within each.  I just do not see either company eating hundreds of dollars per console again as each company loves to be profitable.

Not as major as you would think. It's evolutionary not revolutionary improvements.
Even then, on the odd occasion there was actually regression.

For example... Gamer Nexus did a comparison of Fiji and Vega's IPC. Vega didn't look all that pretty...
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2977-vega-fe-vs-fury-x-at-same-clocks-ipc

Architecturally Maxwell and Pascal are brothers, Pascal did introduce a few improvements, namely an update to Delta Colour Compression which meant a good reworking of the ROPS.
However, Pascals main focus was on reducing leakage and noise so as to drive up clockrates instead, nVidia was pretty successful on that front.

Also 24nm wasn't a thing.
It was 28nm and 16nm respectively.
https://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/74849-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-28nm-maxwell/
https://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/103213-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-16nm-pascal/

Increasing the clockrates has a better overall effect than just blowing out the CU count... Because like I alluded to prior, Graphics Core Next is limited to 64 ROPS (Although independent of the DRAM), 256 TMU's and 4x geometry units... So every-time you increase clockrates, you increase the performance of those components.

There is a reason why Vega 7 took the approach it did, it cut down on the CU count, but dramatically increased clockrates over Vega 64, it's a balancing act.
But for Graphics Core Next to scale beyond 64 CU's, there needs to be a significant reworking of the architecture to fix it's inherent bottlenecks that holds back gaming performance.

Navi will perform better than Polaris, but less than Vega. That's the reality of the situation.

Navi is Polaris's replacement, not a high-end GPU.

It's the same rubbish that happened prior to Polaris's release, everyone was hyping it, but at the end of the day... It was a GPU that was destined for the mainstream markets, just like Navi, so don't expect high-end performance.

And I know this for a FACT because of AMD's statements... And when it comes to hardware, I tend to be right more often than not.

Doesn't matter? It's not meant to test performance, it's meant to test load power consumption.
You only need the one gaming test, which is all that Anandtech provided, unless you are suggesting that you have a better knowledge-base than even Anandtech on this topic?

https://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeon-rx-480-preview/6

I mean, you could cling to the power-virus "furmark" if you wish, but AMD's GPU's throttle in that.

If we take a look at Polaris Version 2. Aka. The Radeon RX 580. Power consumption is higher yet again, higher than a GTX 1070 which out-performs it.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11278/amd-radeon-rx-580-rx-570-review/16

What?

A youtube video based on a youtube video rumor.
Grains of salt shall be had on this day.

 The leaks I have seen pegs Navi at Vega 56 levels. RTX 2070 beats Vega 64... So...
https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3072523/amd-navi-benchmarks-leak

 A revolutionary or not it's still a big jump in improvement even if it's just because of small die size.

Also why the hell you comparing Vega with Fiji, you should compare it to Polaris instead Vega? 

Pascal and Maxwel on architectural level is the same the same with all GCN across the AMD GPU after Fiji , the are improving on the driver level , you just mentioned by yourself.

And why the hell are u using power load consumption as benchmark? and on top of that comparing it to GTX 1070 . Fiji to Polaris as an improvement can only be compared to GTX 970 or 980 and it need  games benchmark not power consumption benchmark. The point of the benchmark is to prove that GTX 970 and GTX 980 as high end GPU can be performed with mainstream GPU like Polaris. 

Navi will perform better or not we still don't know yet, it's only rumor, this just pure speculation based on the latest rumor and on top of that trusted source across the Internet, anyone can agree or not .

Also We don't know if AMD can increase their ROp's or their shader processor , they probably cannot break 64 CU limit but they can increase shader processor.  And yes it's rumor but a rumor or not i have a source , nobody can debunked either right or wrong, because that what we have.

You just assuming AMD is already in the dead end , but we don't know yet, many expert like Adore TV out there who also expert in this, has a lot insider and got a lot of info and newsleak ,think that AMD making a big improvement of GCN for Navi.

Your logic is "AMD is performing bad now, so in the future they will perform bad as well " that's how you think on this matter.  

So yes It's still in a realm of possibility. Also we also got a new benchmark that suspected as Navi GPU and on top of that it's an  igpu or APU https://wccftech.com/amd-navi-gpu-radeon-rx-benchmarks-graphics-performance-rumors/. You need to remember it was mentioned as  low end Navi GPU (navi 12 or 15 probably) , and PS5 are rumored to be using Navi 9 ( a cut down version) .

Also your standar of mainstream GPU for near future is very pessimistic , all High end GPU from 2016 and 2017 will just be a mainstream GPU on 2020 , it's moore law. Even if you say it's more then that AMD is not that stupid. 

Yeah. You can't really say that when Navi isn't even on the market yet.

Because Vega is Fiji's successor.
Polaris is Hawaii's successor.

I did agree you know.

If you have to ask... Then you should probably go back through the quote tree. You mentioned power consumption.

Navi will perform better than Polaris. That's a given.
Navi will perform worst than Vega. That's a given.

What is up for debate is exactly where it will fall.

Which is what myself an many others have been saying all along.

AMD is not in a good spot regarding it's GPU's. - This is coming from someone who primarily buys AMD GPU's for their compute capabilities.

Correct. Because AMD has been performing bad for years... Because they are still stuck with an old, outdated graphics architecture and Navi isn't a deviation from that.
Will Navi offer an increase in performance? Sure. Will Navi offer an increase in efficiency? Sure. But it's not going to be high-end either way, it's going to be mainstream/mid-range just like Polaris.

CompuBench tends to report CU counts incorrectly.
If you read the link, you will see that in compute it was sitting around the level of an RX 580. - Which is a terrible GPU.
So a higher-end Navi GPU will likely fall around Vega 56, tops. - It's not high-end.

The same with u, it's just "rumor ", why you take this seriously.

Oke Vega is Fiji Successor and Polaris is hawaii successor , but Polaris has the same  performance with Fiji or more. That's the point of improvement , the same thing will happen with Navi that will have performance of vega 64 or even more. 

I never asked power consumption as benchmark, The point of the benchmark is to prove that GTX 970 and GTX 980 as high end GPU can be performed with mainstream GPU like Polaris in 2016. 

If you agree if they can increase the shader processor why you are not agree with the rumored performance  number, the new rumor that just came pointed out that if PS5 navi is using Navi 9 that has 4672 sp , which more than Radeon VII , it's possible to gain that level of performance. 

The Compubench shows that it has terrible compute unit but you need to remember Navi intended for gaming focus ( yeah vega and Polaris also intended for gaming but it not helping them by focusing more on compute power ) So if the igpu Navi shows that performance level of shading close to Vega 56, than it's a beast. Imagine a dedicated PC Navi can do (navi 10 or even 9) 

24gb of RAM seems unrealistic to me, as does much of the other stuff. The only way I could see this being accurate is if Sony is going to do a two-SKU thing and these are the specs for the premium unit.

Man, I hope not.  That's asking for failure.  Hardware has to launch at $399 or less, lest it be crushed by whoever sells for less.  In this case, we (essentially) know that MS will have a lower priced SKU. So, a single SKU from Sony cannot be a premium unit, unless it comes without a premium price tag.  

performance equal to a rtx2080.

Is sony planning to sell the PS5 at a lost just like the PS3? Even at launch the PS3 was expensive to build and they still sold it for a loss for $599.