To be fair to
Gavin Stevens
Gavin Stevens
, I think he was working off the assumption "full" RDNA2 was 7nm EUV (as many of us were thinking until yesterday) and that the consoles were going to use 7nm instead of EUV. So any RDNA2 features would've been pulled from the roadmap onto custom APUs of 7nm process node. Doing so could effectively consider them RDNA2 even if they weren't EUV.
Then AMD sideblinded a lot of us by showing RDNA2 was 7nm all along and they're skipping right to 5nm for RDNA3. 7nm EUV's been left in the dust. So I can't hold that against him for speculating RDNA 1.9, a lot of us were speculating similar since we didn't have a full picture of what RDNA2 actually entailed process node-wise.
EDIT: Never mind, he already answered this himself. Hate it when I jump the gun on replies xD.