12nm Threadripper chips are said to likely have 4.4 - 4.5GHz clocks. If it's possible to go from 4.1 to 4.5 with 14nm->12nm, then it is easily possible to go from 4.5->4.8 with 7nm.
Let's wait until Threadripper is out, before using its assumption to make understate another assumption, huh?
As for your logic of "if this, then that", it makes no sense at all. You can't just put two and two together. If that was the case, how come when Intel wen from 32nm on 2600K to 22nm on the 3700K, frequency improvement wasn't achievable? Not only was it not achievable, it was actually less. Same with 4790K at 22nm to 6700K at 14nm+. The latter had significantly better process node, but actually clocked lower. You want to know why? Because frequency doesn't always get higher with lower process node. Nor does frequency scale linearly with power usage (as Ryzen 2 at 4.2-4-3 GHz is a proof). Various architectures and nodes have specific limits and problems, before power delivery completely surges, and a limit can't be reached. That's why the 6700K could barily reach 4.6 GHz stable, when the older 2600K almost reached 5 GHz. Or how Intel went from 4.5 GHz on 6700K to almost 5GHz on the 7700K on the same node. The fact that you don't understand such basic understanding baffles me...
And again, as far as we know, Ryzen 2 on 12nm hasn't really achieved 4.3 GHz within the power limits that GloFo said they did (as TDP is way above 1700x/1800x). Also, nobody ever said 4.8 GHz wasn't achievable, or won't happen (I always professed 10% frequency increase, which is very close to 4.8 GHz)
2. With regards to IPC, there is still a lot of tweaking that can be done on the Zen design, and all claims up until now have been that this will be a decent architectural update. Frankly I am not sure why this is odd for some people: A 10-30% IPC Increase should be expected.
You are right, there is a lot of low-hanging fruits to pick, which is why we will yearly see higher performance improvements than we did during the Intel Core era. Ryzen 2's 10% total perf improvement is a a good example of this.
Why excactly should 30% IPC increase be expected? Can you give me examples of recent years where improvement of an already existing architecture gave 30% IPC increase? Or even 20%? If the IPC increases were this much, why would AMD not try to reflect it in their roadmap then? Their own claims (15% total perf improvement) isn't even near anything you seem to claim.
3.Changing the way they organize the CCX's has been rumored for a while by multiple sources. It IS just rumors right now, but honestly why would AMD not iterate on there "glue architecture"? That would be ridiculous.
Nobody has denied the possibility of this.
^ So really are any of those points crazy? They are all very grounded and semi-conservative possibilities (NOT guarantees).
Yes the points are absolutely crazy, and no, they most certainly are not conservative. They are the very opposite of conservative; these are radical claims.
The reason the points are crazy is because you are expecting a total performance improvement that is about the same as Ryzen itself as a whole new architecture brought from a 6 year old crappy architecture. In what reality is this even possible? And I really would like to know from which sources you are making these claims, because we already know AMD themselves are claiming numbers that are way, way below.
This fallacy that "AMD fanboys elevate expectations" is complete BS too lol.
It's actually completely well-grounded. Polaris got its expectations elevated to GTX 1080 and 1080 Ti killers. As did Vega. Now Navi is getting similiar predictions. Ryzen 2 was also supposed to give 20% performance improvement, according to many. I mean, this happens so often that "AMD hype train" has become a literal meme on the internet. Even on highly pro-AMD forums (like /r/AMD).
Ryzen over-delivered expectations kids, and who cares what fanboys talk about? If someone gets mislead by hype, it's their fault!
Let's look at that, then. AMD actually put goal of achieving 40% performance improvement, but managed to churn a whole 52% in the end. You're absolutely right, AMD overachivied, but they also overachivied by a factor of 1.3x.
You, on the other hand, are claiming a performance improvement that is higher than what AMD have put on their own roadmap by a factor of 4x. That's an insane difference. Also, if you check the roadmap, the performance improvement of Zen 2 is actually closer to 12%. For the sake of a year of improvements, I decided to assume 15%, and even said this was "conservative. Either way, let's say the graph says 15%. Let's say AMD overachieves again, as they did with the initial launch of Ryzen. 15% x 1.3 =....drum roll....20%. Yes, 20%. Not the 50-60% total performance improvement (in SC, mind you; you seem to claim 50% more cores as well, so MT will, in your imagination, increase by 75%+).
So if AMD were to overachieve, the total performance improvement would be somewhere around 20%. NOT 60%+.
From where I am sitting, it seems like there are still a lot of people around here who are simply so whipped by Intel that they cannot possibly bring themselves to believe that it's possible to have decent performance gains Year-Over-Year.
Don't you ever stop with these childish remarks? Do I need to link you all of my posts, some of them almost 1000 words long, on various forums, where I heavily criticize Intel (and have been doing so for many year)? Do you want to see my receipt of the 2700X that I just recently bought (and guess what, I'm buying Zen 2 as well!) ? I don't understand why you keep making these immature accusations.
Intel was never really an essential part of the discussion; it was about AMD and AMD alone. But somehow you manage to completely ruin the discussion with your childish fanboy delusions. Honestly, the only fanboy in here seems to be you.
As for us being so used to Intel's small incriments, that we can't fathom larger improvements. Yet again I refer to AMD's roadmap. There AMD themselves outline the typical 7% industry standard performance improvement from generation to generation, and how Zen is in comparison. AMD themselves outline what kind of year-on-year improvements we ought to see. And guess what? It's not 60%! Nowhere close!
Also, 10% that Ryzen 2 provided is actually better than what Intel does. As is the claim of 15% for Ryzen 2. So no, we're not influenced by years of stagnated Inte Core improvments...
Ryzen 2 has brought another 10% gain with only a VERY slight node shrink and a couple modest tweaks.
The tweaks were in no way modest, my friend; the cache latency was substantially reduced, XFR was improved and the new 12nm LP node supposedly allowed for a 10% frequency improvement on same power delivery. The latter is very important to remember: AMD achieved the 10% improvement overall by going beyond their TDP limits; a facts that you seem to ignore (or just don't understand).
Either way, I don't understand how you can use this as an argument for your 50% performance improvement claim. The disparity between 10% and 50% is huge.
Ryzen 3 will be on a node that is superior to Intel's (not even real) 10nm,
Whether it's superior to Intel's 10nm doesn't tell us anything, man. What matters is how the 7nm process node will be compared to the 12nm LP node on Ryzen 2. And we already have preliminary results to base ourselves off (read my earlier reference to GloFo's own site). We also know that power efficiency is not linear with frequency improvement, as Ryzen 2 using stupendous amounts of power with some overclocking has shown.
For now, you are. I'll make sure to revive this thread in a year's time.
Its good to see new members with some common sense in their gut 
- 