It slays me how much folks are clinging to the Github and it's subsequent extrapolation by YouTubers, etc.
Heisenberg and Osiris have both pegged the PS5 at higher than that, as well as several others who have knowledge a fair bit beyond ours.
Osiris' comment about people being upset on how close the systems will be doesnt point at 9.2 and 12.
Considering Jason Schreier's comment that both are targeting above Google 10.7, I think they're around 11 and 12, maybe even 12 and 13 by final revisions in June.
Matter of fact, I'd bet money that the final TF between the two consoles will be *less* than 1 TF(i.e 11.8 and 12.2 or even 12.6 and 13.2), which is why his statement of people being upset at no discernable difference makes the most sense.
Sony may have some troubles(if we spin the articles as such), but they didnt get to where they are by not listening or being intelligent with their strategies. A nearly 3TF difference goes against all credible information out there.
They've done a ridiculous job controlling all major leaks of this console than any time before. I'm pretty sure they'll reveal something before GDC, because they'd be hard pressed to stop it after that.
With all due respect, there isn't a lot of context to Heisenberg, Osiris, Klee or even Jason's comments. Let alone folks like Tommy Fisher or CameFromFuturesPast, who seemed to be impostors if anything. We don't know what dev kits and spec sheets they were looking at (or their sources were looking at) when they made those posts. We don't know how trustworthy their sources are, or if those sources are still relevant/pertinent.
Take for example Jason's "Google 10.7" comment. We already know that Stadia is GCN, but he never claimed if the 10.7 was just flush (implying something like Moore's Law) or if it were based on architectural specifications. Because guess what? 10.7 GCN gets you roughly 8.025TF Navi, and guess when Sony made a reference to 8TF? Back when they were talking about the amount of processing power you'd need at minimum for native 4K60 gaming. That comment was made likely some time around PS4 Pro's launch IIRC.
This is what I mean when I say some of these insiders have very little context with their statements. It isn't the only example, either. I remember another insider making a statement to the effect of XSX having around 11TF Navi, and this was after the APU die shot went up and tech channel experts had estimated the die size to a little over 400mm2. I asked them at the time of the comment why would the XSX, at a specification of possibly 56CUs, clock its GPU well below the minimum of the sweetspot of 1.7GHz-1.8GHz, to get "just" 11? Because that would mean the GPU clocked @ 1545. Which just made zero sense for an APU of that size. You can probably already guess but said individual was never able to answer that particular question xD.
It honestly perplexes me how quickly people will run with some of the insider claims without actually taking a second and thinking of the context or probability into the claims. This isn't me saying "don't listen to insiders"; they are very much still worth listening to. But you have to weigh it and do so with a dash of salt because not everything will turn out to be true or even close to true. And as someone who likes to do their own research into possibilities, probabilities, existing data and trends etc., that probably makes me less suspectible to believing every single thing an insider claims.
OTOH, I do have to question why everyone who is doubtful of anyone not 100% buying stock into simply insiders jumps off with the Github leak. Can't speak too much for others (tho I'd assume the following's true for many of them, as well), but the Github leak hasn't been at the forefront of my own factors into PS5 speculation. It's a neat reference, but that's about it. Actually, it's been the persistent GPU benchmark datamines which have been of more pertinence, and it just happens that parts of the Github leak agree with them. It just so happens, as well, that the V-design PS5 kit fits circumstantially with the GPU benchmarks as well; you can infer a GPU clocked @2GHz is drawing a lot of heat and that V-design PS5 dev kit fits would be very suitable for cooling such a GPU. The GPU benchmarks have been creating a long-term pattern and that's a data point worth taking into consideration.
Let me get back to the insiders, tho. Speaking of lack of context, another claim by many of them is that XSX's dev kits were running behind schedule relative PS5's, aka PS5 had dev kits out quite earlier. I think it was sometime in November but we had gotten some type of word about XSX devkits just getting shipped? So, the insiders were basically claiming PS5 performance being ahead, but if developers had XSX devkits further behind in steppings or didn't even have XSX devkits at all, would that be assumed? Some of the comments, though, made it seem like XSX devkits were already mature and in dev hands at the time of those early claims. I even noticed contradictions going on from some insiders even on that note, so it really does beg the question of what was their context.
I've seen some reference target spec sheets as a way of making up for that (I know Jason has done such; maybe not to "make up" for earlier claims implying dev kits being out when they weren't, but he did say something about looking at target spec sheets IIRC), but I've always found the timing of some insiders going back and forth between going off the dev kits and the target spec sheets as almost intentionally confusing. And come to think of it, when is the last time any insiders have actually seen up-to-date dev kit performance for either system, or their sources for that matter? Some of the claims put out earlier date very far back, since before E3 2019 in fact. If some have tried telling people to disregard a leak with a chip tested in June 2019, how are their claims for supposed next-gen performance supposed to be taken at face value when they were based on things predating that year's E3? If one source is questionable due to timing, then should not the other be as well?
And FWIW, again the persistent GPU benchmarks that have been found since that leak seem to be more recent as well. Not SUPER recent but, just as an example, Oberon stepping E0 (I think) is the one that fixed a silicon bug in the memory controller, allowing for more memory bandwidth.
I'm not saying one source is "better" than the other, but I can say personally, that at least things like the GPU benchmarks provide a timeline, they have relevance with one another, and have been persistent and provide somewhat more context, which increases their pertinence. Some of the Youtubers a few folks want to write off, they actually have a lot of technical knowledge, and understanding of the production process, fab process, how orders for fabbing works, and understanding of the performance potential of various architectures including, yes, Zen and Navi. Some of them also have a focus on the tech market as a whole, especially with particular companies like AMD and Intel, their product lines etc. and even if they don't focus particularly on gaming, when they DO talk about the next-gen systems they tend to utilize that knowledge into their discussion of various rumors or data that comes about.
IMO, a healthy mix of taking the various sources into account is the best approach, because none of them are going to be 100% correct. And, yes, for certain areas I think some carry more weight than others. For example at the moment I feel the benchmark datamines carry more weight than insiders "claiming" certain specs, because one is hard data with a pattern and timeline to it while the other are speculation from messengers relying on sources that can run the gamut of literally anything.
People being honest in their own speculation who are wiling to shift through the different sources (leaks, insiders, benchmarks, tech analyzer speculation, tech articles etc.) and see what parts of what they say are most probable and line up in agreement with each other the most within a sensible hierarchy, are going to be closer to guessing what's likely with these system versus those who cling absolutely to only one such source, to the point of infallibility. Hopefully people put some of those more troublesome emotions aside and try being more reasonable in what they speculate; it's alright to have a preference, but don't let it turn you into making unreasonable speculations especially if those lead into a next-gen console war pissing contest.