First off, your calculation is wrong because these chips are not the same size. Secondly, if you actually go with the definition of Moore's law, my argument still holds - and it's trivial to prove. From your linked article:
>Moore's law [states] the number of transistors that could be housed in a dense integrated circuit [doubles every X]
(emphasis mine)
The PS4 GPU was a 28nm chip and PS5's is a 7nm one. A factor four reduction in length between transistor terminals equates to a factor of 16 increase in transistors that could be housed in one unit of area. That's precisely what you'd have expected from your definition of Moore's law. In reality there's a bit more to it, like efficiency and power consumption (Moore included that in his original estimate), which slightly lessen whole deal of increasing compute power. But as stated in my first comment, it still holds as an OOM increase when you look at raw FLOPs in the end, which is what we expected.
>Moore's law [states] the number of transistors that could be housed in a dense integrated circuit [doubles every X]
(emphasis mine)
The PS4 GPU was a 28nm chip and PS5's is a 7nm one. A factor four reduction in length between transistor terminals equates to a factor of 16 increase in transistors that could be housed in one unit of area. That's precisely what you'd have expected from your definition of Moore's law. In reality there's a bit more to it, like efficiency and power consumption (Moore included that in his original estimate), which slightly lessen whole deal of increasing compute power. But as stated in my first comment, it still holds as an OOM increase when you look at raw FLOPs in the end, which is what we expected.