It's legit. It appears Navi indeed sacrificed compute to gain more pixel pushing power, just like Digital Foundry predicted/anticipated. A Vega 64 is 12.5 TFLOPS, yet an RX 5700 is 8.5 TFLOPS at typical gaming clocks, and it's faster than a Vega 64.
Less peak FP doesn't mean it's not doing more real FLOPS on average.
At 40CU in 255mm^2, that’s roughly the same CU density as Polaris - 36 CU in 232 mm^2. Radeon 7 saw a 33% shrink despite doubling memory bus, so this sounds like a big architecture overhaul.
That doesnt fit at all with the 1,25 IPC gain per clock. You need 10 Navi Tflops to reach 12,5 Vega Tflops performance. In fact it should be a 25 % slower than a Vega 64.
And the AMD marketing team misses it?. Nah, it will be 1,25 in the best case.
I would advice to pay little attention to what AMD claims as gains, they will maximize them as much as they could under extreme ideal conditions.
1.25x was across a suite of 30 games at 4K. If you call an average of 30 games best case, then I guess you're correct.
You claim an 8.5TFLOP Navi > 12.5TFLOP Vega. That would mean 1.25x is anything but ideal.
This isn't about the FLOPS, it's about performance (IPC) per clock. RX 5700 runs at 1750MHz typical gaming clock, which enables it to achieve performance comparable to the 2070, which is 10% faster than Vega 64.
Are you confirming the Strange Brigade demo was at 1750MHz?
So, why AMD ,that will give us the best case scenario, says the performance per clock is 1,25 higher?. To get what you say they should say 1,50.
Less that and outright just lower peak FP.
Of course it is based on an average, so that with 1750 Mhz it will still be on average 11% short in performance of a Vega 64.