First of all, this isn't news, it doesn't even qualify as rumour. It's just Youtube commentators putting forth insinuations and not backing them up. A lot of "Nvidia is behind the scenes as usual" and then they say exactly nothing to back it up. Zero.
The Navi reviews are weird? Why? Let's get one thing out of the way: AMD's Navi architecture is not as exciting as Zen 2, it simply isn't, I don't understand how Good Old Gamer can say the exact opposite, he just needs to look at the stats to know the facts. Moore's Law is Dead also doesn't understand or pretends not to, that Navi's 2.0 die size with ray tracing hardware will also be bigger, but instead prefers to convey that Turing on 7nm would still be bigger than Navi. And he makes a bunch of false claims, like Fermi was not as good as AMD's GPU arch of the time, it's false, the GTX 480 just had a terrible cooler, just like the 290X. When AMD had to catch up to Fermi 1.1 (aka GTX 580), AMD's power efficiency with the HD 6970 also went out of the door, and the GTX 580 was the fastest card of its generation, with a 244w TDP vs 250w TDP of the HD 6970. And come on, the Phenom II was a good deal, especially Thuban, but it didn't have the same performance as Intel.
Anyway, we know that Navi is architecturally behind Nvidia's Turing. It's 7nm that is allowing AMD to make the Navi cards in the first place, otherwise on 12nm their board power would go out of the window. 12nm is a cheaper process, Nvidia knows that and is using it, while AMD, being the small company that it is, would be using it too if it was feasible to deliver Navi with it, but it isn't. In order for Navi to be as good an arch as Turing in rasterization performance, the RX 5700 XT at $399 should be performing on par with an RTX 2080 Ti, while using 150w.
Then, as I said in another post, you only get one chance to make a first good impression and AMD's Radeon group still doesn't understand this simple fact of life after all these years. They made beginner's mistakes with the R9 290X ("Uber" loud switch with a crappy cooler to beat the Titan), the Fury X (an "overclocker's dream"), the RX 480 (exceeding PCIe compliance power draw on the card slot), Vega 64 (obscene power draw vs the 1080) and now Navi, which is late and overpriced like Nvidia, even with last minute price cuts - also because proper open air cooler versions from AIB's are still not factored in the prices, same undervolting talk as Vega. The media engine, according to the LTT review, produces poor results, and the cooler, in order to not be as loud as before (but still loud), was hamstrung and now the cards get super hot, like Criminal already mentioned from his personal Navi experience in another thread, and in the case of LTT, even produces a system shutdown.
AMD needs to think long and hard why their GPUs are seen as second rate. Even when they have a good card like the R9 290X, they make beginner's mistakes with it.
Anyway, even Good Old Gamer says that AMD's marketing is terrible, yes, yes it is, but marketing is not only about publicity, it's about how you go and plan a product that people will want to buy.
And that brings us to Scott Herkelman, who, due to the backlash on the cooler, is now liking the open air cooler more on launch. Well, they should have done that, now it's only going to happen with Navi 2.0, so again one step behind Nvidia:
But the feedback over the past few weeks has been really good for us to read. Going forward:
1). If blower design are used also offer dual/tri-axial options at launch for the enthusiasts. I like this idea.
In any case, as I said before, these two GPU generations are experimental, uncooked, from both Nvidia and AMD and are thus a pass. Samsung 7nm EUV / TSMC 6nm is where it's at.
We are currently having x60 - x70 performance class tier for $399(+) from both camps, after a long time after the previous gen, even more so for AMD. So no, Navi isn't great value, it's just slightly better than Nvidia's Super series and that isn't saying much. With Navi you're simply getting in 2019 the level of price/performance improvement that we should have gotten last year, and don't forget to add some money to get an AIB card with a proper cooler in mid-August / September, so it's actually $399+, making the actual cost difference between AMD's Navi and Nvidia's Super smaller than it appears right now.
If anything, GPU reviewers are saying good things about both Super and Navi without emphasizing that they are both overpriced and thus consumers will not be getting as good of a deal as they were in the past and hopefully will in the future given that 7nm EUV and similar nodes will simplify and speed up the design process, improve yields and generally make things less expensive.