If AMD's numbers shown hold true, the 4090 should only be about 10% faster than the 7900XTX in raster.
Indeed. 1.54x perf/watt (can't find the end note on that. 816 does not seem to exist in the slide deck TPU have so don't know what games were tested but I am going to assume it is 6950XT vs 7900XTX in a suite of several games because that is usually how they do things) with 1.06x more power is about 63% faster than the 6950XT on average and would fit within the upto 1.7x claim.
Techspot have the 6950XT scoring around 85fps on a geomean average at 4K vs 144 for the 4090. 1.63x would be 138-139fps so within 5% or 95% of the 4090 performance.
So I do wonder where 7900XT performance will land. Pricing would suggest the XTX is about 10% faster than the 7900XT so the 7900XT should be around 125fps in the above chart.
The 4080 12GB was around 3080Ti / 3090 performance in the NV charts and 4080 16GB was about in the middle of that and the 4090 so that would be about 115 on the above chart for the 4080 16GB so it does look like the $900 7900XT is going to be competitive in raster vs the $1,200 4080 16GB.
As for N32 well 7.5k shaders @ 2.5Ghz probably gets in to around 105fps in that chart or about 48% faster than the 6800XT and making the 7900XT about 20% faster than the 7800XT it kinda looks reasonable. Pricing on that is likely what $650 - 700. Pretty good perf/$ gain and would also be far faster than what NV tried to charge $900 for in raster atleast.
And then 7700XT is probably going to be around 6950 / 3090Ti levels given what was said about N32 matching the 6950XT in a 150W envelope.
7600XT using N33 could easily be 6800 - 6800XT tier. Probably closer to the latter at 1080p and the former at 4k.