Support NeoGAF

[R600]

It was already point out in this thread by other people, but you only compute the information that suits you. What happened in 2013 was the previous generation with 300 dollars taken lost per console, rrod and red light of death, no mandatory ps plus... This time around is all different picture!

What happened in 2005 was graphic tech was completely different then it is today. Really, hardly comparable.

You could put 200W console that would he 2x as fast as best PC at the time, but nowadays you need 400W+ to match high end PC (while Nvidia is on older node process).

What happened in early 2000s will never happen again. Tech is just hitting the wall, there is no big node advances and new ways to skin a cat. GCN lasted for 7 years, back in the day Ati and Nvidia changed arch every year so console makers could benefit alot more.

 

[TLZ]

How do we know whether 5700/XT are in fact DUV (deep ultraviolet) and not EUV (extreme ultraviolet, shorter wavelength than DUV?

How much sunscreen will I need for this?

 

[LordOfChaos]

How much sunscreen will I need for this?

1 SPF per TF

 

[R600]

Seems Nvidia will be using TSMC as well along with Samsung for their next gen GPUs.

Update: Nvidia VP Says Next-Gen GPUs Will Be Made by TSMC and Samsung

Nvidia reportedly confirmed that it's partnered with Samsung to manufacture its Ampere GPU, which is expected to launch in 2020 using its 7nm EUVL process.

www.tomshardware.com

Updated, 7/5/19, 9:23am PT: Nvidia executive vice president of operations Debora Shoquist said in a statement that “Recent reports are incorrect – NVIDIA’s next-generation GPU will continue to be produced at TSMC. NVIDIA already uses both TSMC and Samsung for manufacturing, and we plan to use both foundries for our next-generation GPU products.”

 

[LordOfChaos]

Seems Nvidia will be using TSMC as well along with Samsung for their next gen GPUs.

Update: Nvidia VP Says Next-Gen GPUs Will Be Made by TSMC and Samsung

Nvidia reportedly confirmed that it's partnered with Samsung to manufacture its Ampere GPU, which is expected to launch in 2020 using its 7nm EUVL process.

www.tomshardware.com

Updated, 7/5/19, 9:23am PT: Nvidia executive vice president of operations Debora Shoquist said in a statement that “Recent reports are incorrect – NVIDIA’s next-generation GPU will continue to be produced at TSMC. NVIDIA already uses both TSMC and Samsung for manufacturing, and we plan to use both foundries for our next-generation GPU products.”

Samsung for lower cost tiers, TSMC for the mid-upper end, is my guess? N7 (and N7+) is still the node to beat, while the rumor was that Samsung was aggressively undercutting on pricing to get any business, offering a full mask set for under the price of one multi layer mask from TSMC.

 

[TLZ]

1 SPF per TF

Not enough I'm afraid!

 

[Ar¢tos]

Not enough I'm afraid!

 

[SonGoku]

I think we are finding out that it's possible a 9 TF NAVI GPU may be similar to an RTX 2080 tier GPU

Not even close LOOOOL if that was the case AMD would be singing it from the rooftops, and Navi perf per flop would be higher than Turing (which isn't the case)
2070, 1080, Vega64 are all on the same tier and make for a very underwhelming next gen leap

If they never came out an 8tflop console would have been huge for us.

It wouldn't, Vega64/2070 performance is not enough for a next gen leap at 4k

TSMC was promising 7nm EUV mass production starting March this year.

7nm EUV this year is for mobile chips

If it means the 9TF GPU with RDNA2 performs better than the 10.7TF GPU on GCN, then I don't think they'll care.

Vega56/64 is not the benchmark for next gen

So 7nm+ must be EUV?

Yes

The nexbox SoC was confirmed to be 390mm^2 surely more than 36 CU's can be packed into that even with 7nm DUV.

That's 60CUs on 7nm DUV and close to 80 on EUV

 

[SonGoku]

How come 1.8TF GCN1.0 with mobile CPU made it to 2020?

Performance wise 5700 and 5700 XT are comparable to using a GTX 280 and GTX 460 respectively both way below the GPU used in the PS4
Jaguar was trash but it was a massive leap over the PPE core nevertheless

 

[ArabianPrynce]

Performance wise 5700 and 5700 XT are comparable to using a GTX 280 and GTX 460 respectively both way below the GPU used in the PS4
Jaguar was trash but it was a massive leap over the PPE core nevertheless

 

[SonGoku]

ArabianPrynce

There is talks about 7nm+, but historically consoles use the manufacturing node that was released a year or earlier. So a 7nm+ is unlikely. After all, you don't want your console plans to hinge a node that may not come to fruition, have really bad yields or unable to go mass manufacturing.

7nm+ is not a new node, its 7nm with some EUV layers (4 non critical layers), yields are already on par with 7nm

TL;DR: based on Navi benchmarks for the RX 5700, PS5 GPU will be around the RTX 2080 / 2080 Ti assuming the rumors hold true.

This is what i expect to: in between 2080 and 2080Ti (closer to the 2080)

Power draw is a concern. As such, take the above with a giant grain of salt.

A full length vapor chamber can handle 250W no problem

 

[llien]

...NVIDIA already uses both TSMC and Samsung for manufacturing...

Is this true though? Which cards are produced at "and Samsung"?
That comment could simply be "let's not make TSMC nervous".

Vega56/64 is not the benchmark for next gen

Perhaps it would make sense to switch to % of Vega64 or other cards, instead of TF figure, which brings nothing but confusion.

 

[Marlenus]

Not even close LOOOOL if that was the case AMD would be singing it from the rooftops, and Navi perf per flop would be higher than Turing (which isn't the case)
2070, 1080, Vega64 are all on the same tier and make for a very underwhelming next gen leap.

computerbase.de did some rdna Vs Turing tests at the same shader count, same clockspeed and same memory bandwidth and the average was a 1% win for rdna.

It means perf/flop and perf/transistor for RDNA is roughly equal to Turing which is a pretty impressive leap from where GCN was.

 

[ANIMAL1975]

What happened in 2005 was graphic tech was completely different then it is today. Really, hardly comparable.

You could put 200W console that would he 2x as fast as best PC at the time, but nowadays you need 400W+ to match high end PC (while Nvidia is on older node process).

What happened in early 2000s will never happen again. Tech is just hitting the wall, there is no big node advances and new ways to skin a cat. GCN lasted for 7 years, back in the day Ati and Nvidia changed arch every year so console makers could benefit alot more.

You didn't understand what i meant. After a all generation of losses in hardware (and no payed multiplayer on Sony side), both companies had to plan the new consoles on a tight budget, ps plus become obligatory for online, taking losses per machine was out of the question! This time around there's a all new picture.

 

[mckmas8808]

Not even close LOOOOL if that was the case AMD would be singing it from the rooftops, and Navi perf per flop would be higher than Turing (which isn't the case)
2070, 1080, Vega64 are all on the same tier and make for a very underwhelming next gen leap

I thought AMD's 5700XT was 7.5 or 8 TFs of GPU power. Is that wrong?

 

[ResilientBanana]

I always picture this thread on fire.

This is my thought on the matter as well. 7nm not 7nm+. I think everyone should keep there expectations in check.

 

[TLZ]

I thought AMD's 5700XT was 7.5 or 8 TFs of GPU power. Is that wrong?

That's 9tf. The 5700 is 7.5.

 

[mckmas8808]

That's 9tf. The 5700 is 7.5.

Oh okay, so that's the confusion I had. So an 11TF Navi that's 7nm+ EUV, would be like having an RTX 2080Ti then. So we probably won't be getting that. The best we can hope for is a custom Navi that's between slightly better than the 5700XT (example: 10TF with some extra Sony added features to boot).

 

[SpinningBirdKick]

Sony have made serious bank this generation and the Microsoft xbox hardware division wants its swansong to be more than a footnote in history.

Relax, we're all getting at least 12 Navi TF.

 

[Insane Metal]

This is what i expect to: in between 2080 and 2080Ti (closer to the 2080)

I will eat a truckful of crows if this happens.

 

[ResilientBanana]

ArabianPrynce
This is what i expect to: in between 2080 and 2080Ti (closer to the 2080)

Since when have game consoles been better than mid-range PC's? This would be mind blowing and will never happen.

 

[THE:MILKMAN]

Sony have made serious bank this generation and the Microsoft xbox hardware division wants its swansong to be more than a footnote in history.

Relax, we're all getting at least 12 Navi TF.

Next-gen will have 12 Navi TF like PS3 had "2TF"!

 

[SonGoku]

computerbase.de did some rdna Vs Turing tests at the same shader count, same clockspeed and same memory bandwidth and the average was a 1% win for rdna.

It means perf/flop and perf/transistor for RDNA is roughly equal to Turing which is a pretty impressive leap from where GCN was.

No it doesn't, turing is about 1TF ahead compared to RDNA

I thought AMD's 5700XT was 7.5 or 8 TFs of GPU power. Is that wrong?

9-9.7TF depending of boost clock

Since when have game consoles been better than mid-range PC's? This would be mind blowing and will never happen.

2080 will be midrange by the time consoles launch

Next-gen will have 12 Navi TF like PS3 had "2TF"!

You joke, but 11-12TF Navi is the minimum for a proper next gen leap at 4K
Adjusted to resolution performance 8-9TF Navi for next gen is the equivalent of using GTX 280 and GTX 460 respectively for current gen consoles.

 

[ResilientBanana]

2080 will be midrange by the time consoles launch

Maybe, but everything needs to exist today so they can build games with final devkits and consoles. The GPU of tomorrow does not exist today, therefore we are not getting next years GPU in a console that releases next year.

I've said this before, but we are not getting Wine Tier GPU's for Beer Tier pricing. It's simply not going to happen.

 

[SonGoku]

So an 11TF Navi that's 7nm+ EUV, would be like having an RTX 2080Ti then

Not at all
11TF Navi would be 2080 tier maybe close to a 2080S but nowhere close to a Ti

Maybe, but everything needs to exist today so they can build games with final devkits and consoles. The GPU of tomorrow does not exist today, therefore we are not getting next years GPU in a console that releases next year.

I've said this before, but we are not getting Wine Tier GPU's for Beer Tier pricing. It's simply not going to happen.

Not really, console launches have proven they have their own roadmaps and engeneering samples independent of discrete cards available
That's the benefit of custom and semi custom designs.

Big Navi discrete cards will easily pull 16-18TF, Nvidia ampere midrange card will be 2080S performance of above

 

[Ovech-King]

11-12TF Navi is the minimum for a proper next gen leap at 4K
Adjusted to resolution performance 8-9TF Navi for next gen is the equivalent of using GTX 2080 and GTX 460 respectively for current gen consoles.

Totally; my 10.5 Tflops rtx 2080 even with manual overclock run maybe on 50% of games at 4k 60 fps and I have a better cpu frequency (4.4 ghz) than the ryzen will have

 

[THE:MILKMAN]

You joke, but 11-12TF Navi is the minimum for a proper next gen leap at 4K
Adjusted to resolution performance 8-9TF Navi for next gen is the equivalent of using GTX 280 and GTX 460 respectively for current gen consoles.

I'm really not joking. I'm just being realistic. If Sony/Microsoft have some TF rabbit in their hats that will give us 11-12 Navi TF then Great. I'm not going all in on expecting it though as it just leads to disappointment.

For the last 2 years I've expected Vega 56-Vega 64 performance for next-gen and even the 5700 meets/exceeds that. Add custom bits/RT/SSD/16GB+ RAM and I can't wait to see the closed box results.

 

[SonGoku]

If Sony/Microsoft have some TF rabbit in their hats that will give us 11-12 Navi TF then Great

That Rabbits name is EUV
But even on standard DUV between 10-11TF is doable on a console

I'm not going all in on expecting it though as it just leads to disappointment.

I don't get the need to lowball to be satisfied, its just consoles. But fine

For the last 2 years I've expected Vega 56-Vega 64 performance for next-gen and even the 5700 meets/exceeds that.

The thing is Vega64 + 15% is nowhere near enough for a next gen leap at 4k
If the target resolution was 1080p to 1440p it would be fine

Totally; my 10.5 Tflops rtx 2080 even with manual overclock run maybe on 50% of games at 4k 60 fps and I have a better cpu frequency (4.4 ghz) than the ryzen will have

and thats for current gen games, next gen will be much more demanding

 

[THE:MILKMAN]

SonGoku

The single biggest barrier/kryptonite for Sony and MS is power consumption of Navi. The same happened with PS4 to be fair. Sony took a full 7870 chip and disabled 2CUs but then clocked it lower than the 7850.

I could see them do the same for PS5. Take a full Navi 10 chip and disable 4CUs but this time clock it as high as possible and put in better cooling in a bigger case.

Another reason for Sony/MS to hold back on specs is possible mid-gen upgrades. Gotto leave room to make the upgrade worth it.

 

[SonGoku]

SonGoku
The single biggest barrier/kryptonite for Sony and MS is power consumption of Navi. The same happened with PS4 to be fair. Sony took a full 7870 chip and disabled 2CUs but then clocked it lower than the 7850.
I could see them do the same for PS5. Take a full Navi 10 chip and disable 4CUs but this time clock it as high as possible and put in better cooling in a bigger case.

The work around that is going with a wider design clocked lower (1500-1600Mhz) to undervolt the chips and applying the hobbit method
7nm pro and 7nm+ have power reductions as well
All things considered a 250W console would be enough for the higher end of expectations (11TF DUV & 13-14TF EUV)

Another reason for Sony/MS to hold back on specs is possible mid-gen upgrades. Gotto leave room to make the upgrade worth it.

That could be possible if they suggest devs to target 1440p instead of 4k and launch at $400
5700XT is just not enough for a next gen leap at 4K, a disabled version would do much worse

 

[LordOfChaos]

Edit: Nevermind me, guess I was late to this party

AMD Radeon RX 5700 und RX 5700 XT im Test: Architektur-Vergleich, Preis-Leistung, Custom Designs (Update)

AMD Radeon RX 5700 (XT) im Test: Architektur-Vergleich, Preis-Leistung, Custom Designs (Update) / Navi vs. Vega vs. Turing vs. Pascal

www.computerbase.de

Navi (RDNA) vs.​	Average gain​
Turing​	+1%​
Pascal​	+13%​
Vega​	+28%​
Polaris​	+39%​

Granted they're a full node down from Nvidia, but they did all but catch up in performance per clock/ALU (in other words, IPC).

 

[SonGoku]

Granted they're a full node down from Nvidia, but they did all but catch up in performance per clock/ALU (in other words, IPC).

Does that mean a 11TF Navi would match a 2080S?
I can see that being the sweet spot next gen consoles target

 

[THE:MILKMAN]

The work around that is going with a wider design clocked lower (1500-1600Mhz) to undervolt the chips and applying the hobbit method
7nm pro and 7nm+ have power reductions as well
All things considered a 250W console would be enough for the higher end of expectations (11TF DUV & 13-14TF EUV)

Where it all comes crumbling down is saying 250W would be enough. No way is any console even approaching 250W. That is higher than the the high-end PC test systems running a 5GHz i9, 32GB RAM and a 5700 the tech sites use (Anandtech's used 231 watts running the 5700).

 

[SonGoku]

Where it all comes crumbling down is saying 250W would be enough. No way is any console even approaching 250W. That is higher than the the high-end PC test systems running a 5GHz i9, 32GB RAM and a 5700 the tech sites use (Anandtech's used 231 watts running the 5700).

Why not? thats 250W total system power consumption btw
The X already breaks 200W in some tests

And again that's for the higher end of expectations the more conservative ones (10.3TF DUV & 12TF EUV) would comfortably fit a 200W total system consumption

 

[vpance]

SonGoku

The single biggest barrier/kryptonite for Sony and MS is power consumption of Navi. The same happened with PS4 to be fair. Sony took a full 7870 chip and disabled 2CUs but then clocked it lower than the 7850.

I could see them do the same for PS5. Take a full Navi 10 chip and disable 4CUs but this time clock it as high as possible and put in better cooling in a bigger case.

Another reason for Sony/MS to hold back on specs is possible mid-gen upgrades. Gotto leave room to make the upgrade worth it.

I'm not so sure a mid gen upgrade will be worth it for them this time. They were able to release Pro for a bit more than 2x the power for a fair price. Next gen they could do maybe 40% more power on 5nm? Even Pro already was already not really worth it if you didn't own a 4K TV.

That's why they should go as powerful as they can at launch, at $499.

 

[THE:MILKMAN]

Why not? thats 250W total system power consumption btw
The X already breaks 200W in some tests

And again that's for the higher end of expectations the more conservative ones (10.3TF DUV & 12TF EUV) would comfortably fit a 200W total system consumption system

Because it just doesn't make sense and would be costly. Bigger case, bigger power supply etc. I expect +-175W and possibly Microsoft pushing 200W if they feel the need to take the performance crown.

One X was different as it was a niche model and sold at the higher $500 price point. It was pushed to the limit on thermals and watts and I can't see Scarlett doing the same if they hope to compete in sales this time round (1 million a/month).

I really do think Sony and Microsoft knew from the outset they would have to get creative for these consoles to feel like a proper leap. The SSD being part of that.

 

[SonGoku]

Because it just doesn't make sense and would be costly. Bigger case, bigger power supply etc. I expect +-175W and possibly Microsoft pushing 200W if they feel the need to take the performance crown.

One X was different as it was a niche model and sold at the higher $500 price point. It was pushed to the limit on thermals and watts and I can't see Scarlett doing the same if they hope to compete in sales this time round (1 million a/month).

I really do think Sony and Microsoft knew from the outset they would have to get creative for these consoles to feel like a proper leap. The SSD being part of that.

Its the same scenario plus more incentive (main system vs upgrades), next gen consoles will target $500 so vapor chamber is given
The X broke 200W depending of the model tested and that was a very slim console made for profit, nothing stops launch consoles from being fatter/bigger as they traditionally are and taking a small loss.

I think Sony/MS knew less than 10TF wouldn't cut it for next gen, 11TF being the sweetspot, that's why they target late 2020.

 

[SpinningBirdKick]

Next-gen will have 12 Navi TF like PS3 had "2TF"!

Come on son, have some ambition...

Next gen will have at least one 14 TF beast.

Sony will double down with powerful hardware and MS needs a hail mary pass to get them out of the jam they're in.

Neither will be giving you less than 12 TF. If they were they wouldn't have waited for 7nm EUV in 2020 to release their next consoles.

 

[Marlenus]

No it doesn't, turing is about 1TF ahead compared to RDNA

5700 has 2304 shaders and 7ghz gddr6. The 2070 also has 2304 shaders and 7ghz gddr6. Computer base.de set both cards to 1.5Ghz (around 6.9Tflops) and the performance was the same on average across a range of games.

That means performance per flop is roughly equal, maybe rdna gets bottlenecked at higher clocks more readily than turing, I don't know and I have only seen one data point so it is not totally conclusive.

Using Anandtechs review as they give the average clock in each game the 2070 has a 15% performance advantage over the 5700 in GTA V while having a 12% clockspeed advantage. GTA V also seems to very slightly favour Turing as the 5700 is a dead heat with the 2060. When I get chance I will compare more games bit it does suggest that with equal Tflops rdna can pretty much match Turing.

 

[SonGoku]

5700 has 2304 shaders and 7ghz gddr6. The 2070 also has 2304 shaders and 7ghz gddr6. Computer base.de set both cards to 1.5Ghz (around 6.9Tflops) and the performance was the same on average across a range of games.

Yeah I've seen the benchmark LordOfChaos posted. Great news assuming it applies to all gaming scenarios
That means that with a conservative 12TF (on EUV ) they can surpass 2080S and 10.5TF (on DUV) match 2080.

• 54CUs @1520 Mhz = 10.5TF (2080 tier)
• 60CUs @1600Mhz = 12.28TF (2080S+ tier)

 

[CrustyBritches]

Even if you had a 20% reduction in average power consumption for 5700 XT, you're still pulling 175W on just the graphics card alone. That's as much as the "at the wall" consumption for the Xbox One X. Add 8-16GB GDDR6 so +16-32W, uc/uv Zen 2 8c at 32W, plus the rest of the system = ~240W average gaming consumption...with highly hopeful 20% reduction in power consumption.

Sony took 2016's RX 480(~166W) and downclocked by ~30% for ~155W total system consumption in the same year. MS waited a year and put the equivalent of a slightly oc'd RX 480 with more/faster RAM in the Xbox One X for ~175W total system consumption in 2017. Working back from a hypothetical 200W system...subtract ~48W for CPU+8GB GDDR6 = 152W. Account for the rest of the system(SSD, BD Drive, USB, etc) and you have maybe 140W for the GPU TBP(this includes 8GB GDDR6, rolling mobo in as part of TBP). Personally, 200W sounds high for a console.

 

[Marlenus]

Even if you had a 20% reduction in average power consumption for 5700 XT, you're still pulling 175W on just the graphics card alone. That's as much as the "at the wall" consumption for the Xbox One X. Add 8-16GB GDDR6 so +16-32W, uc/uv Zen 2 8c at 32W, plus the rest of the system = ~240W average gaming consumption...with highly hopeful 20% reduction in power consumption.

Sony took 2016's RX 480(~166W) and downclocked by ~30% for ~155W total system consumption in the same year. MS waited a year and put the equivalent of a slightly oc'd RX 480 with more/faster RAM in the Xbox One X for ~175W total system consumption in 2017. Working back from a hypothetical 200W system...subtract ~48W for CPU+8GB GDDR6 = 152W. Account for the rest of the system(SSD, BD Drive, USB, etc) and you have maybe 140W for the GPU TBP(this includes 8GB GDDR6, rolling mobo in as part of TBP). Personally, 200W sounds high for a console.

Assuming the 5700xt is towards the upper end of the clockspeed/power curve then a card with more shaders but lower clockspeeds will use less power for the same performance, the trade-off is die area but if euv is cheaper that may not matter as much.

 

[SonGoku]

Even if you had a 20% reduction in average power consumption for 5700 XT, you're still pulling 175W on just the graphics card alone.

Thats not how it works... 5700XT is pushing 1900MHz clocks with a voltage to sustain it.
At 1520Mhz (DUV) and 1600Mhz (EUV) the consoles chips would have lower voltage and much better perf/watt. Thats before even taking into account any 7nm+/7nm pro power savings

Personally, 200W sounds high for a console.

Certain X models (hobbit method) broke 200W. The X was also a very slim console
I don't see why a phat launch console with a large vapor chamber couldn't handle 250W comfortably

, the trade-off is die area but if euv is cheaper that may not

Right EUV is less complex so cheaper to produce and 66CUs 384bit bus would fit 350-360mm2

 

[CrustyBritches]

Thats not how it works... 5700XT is pushing 1900MHz clocks with a voltage to sustain it.

Demonstrate that with 5700 XT. UC/UV it while UV'ing a 5700 Pro and compare perf/watt gains then we'll go from there.

Your hopes and dreams are beyond best-case. Reconcile that with recent historical precedence(PS4/PS4 Pro, Xbox X) and known consumption for Navi 10.

You know I'm on the conservative side. I just wanted to pop back in and say Anandtech's "Building the PS5" build with UC/UV Zen 2 8c and 5700 Pro was pulling ~250W during the 120fps test. So get on and ask them their thoughts on your theory, I've explained my position maybe we will learn something new from them?


Austin Evans Twitter

 

[xool]

When I get chance I will compare more games bit it does suggest that with equal Tflops rdna can pretty much match Turing.

This seems an important takeaway

So new (RDNA) AMD FlOPS ~= Nvidia Flops (for same real game performance)

?Does other people agree with this rough equivalence ?

 

[TeamGhobad]

its time to watercool. thats my opinion. i dont want a mid cycle refresh. water cool the sucker. put in a big fan like the OG xbox one had. and ur good to go.

 

[SonGoku]

Demonstrate that with 5700 XT. UC/UV it while UV'ing a 5700 Pro and compare perf/watt gains then we'll go from there.

Power hungry Vega:

Reconcile that with recent historical precedence(PS4/PS4 Pro, Xbox X) and known consumption for Navi 10.

Launch consoles this gen target $400 with profits, next gen $500 with small loss will enable 200-250W consoles by employing vapor chambers or similar state of the art cooling solutions

"Building the PS5" build with UC/UV Zen 2 8c and 5700 Pro was pulling ~250W during the 120fps test.

They are doing it wrong... even if the target for next gen was a measly 8TF console manufacturers would go with a wider/slower design. 1.7/1.8GHZ its just too much for console clocks on standard 7nm

its time to watercool. thats my opinion. i dont want a mid cycle refresh. water cool the sucker. put in a big fan like the OG xbox one had. and ur good to go.

No need, a large vapor chamber would be enough to cool 250W consoles which can power the highest of expectations (11TF DUV & 13-14TF EUV)
My baseline expectations are now 10.5TF (DUV) & 12TF (EUV)

 

[Marlenus]

This seems an important takeaway

So new (RDNA) AMD FlOPS ~= Nvidia Flops (for same real game performance)

?Does other people agree with this rough equivalence ?

I am comparing the Anandtech numbers for the 5700XT and the 2070 super at the moment and it is interesting as both have the same number of shaders, the same ROPS and the same memory bandwidth.

At 1440P the 5700XT does really well.

Tomb Raider perf is the same with the 5700XT running at 1780Mhz and the 2070S running at 1875Mhz
F1 2019 the 5700XT is a couple of % ahead with the xt at 1800Mhz and the 2070s at 1875Mhz

It seems the games where the 5800XT loses (at 1440p) are the ones where it does not clock that high whereas the 2070s seems to clock up at 1850+MHz on a pretty consistent basis.

At 4k and 1080p though it seems to fall behind which seems odd.

It makes me think that with some driver tweaks and aib coolers that can keep it in check it might match the 2070s at 1440p.

EDIT: I got fed up of comparing on my phone but if you read the 5700 review for the FPS numbers/5700 clockspeeds and the 2070s review for the 2070s clockspeeds but the takeaway is the clockspeeds on the xt are far more variable Vs the 2070s.

 

[SonGoku]

The piss poor 5700XT performance at 4k further cements my confidence on 2080-2080S+ tier consoles

 

[ResilientBanana]

The piss poor 5700XT performance at 4k further cements my confidence on 2080-2080S+ tier consoles

I don't know what you're smoking, but it's peaked my interest. I hope your right, but I have serious doubts.