GPU wise:

Wii U  = 5 CUs (320 ALUs) @ 550mhz , 8 ROPS, 16 TMUs, 0.35 TFLOPS, 4.4 GPix/s, 8.8 GTex/s, 12.8GB/s DDR3, eDRAM (32MB).

Xbox1 = 12 CUs (768 ALUs) @853MHz , 16 ROPS, 48 TMUs, 1.31 TFLOPS, 13.6 GPix/s, 40.9 GTex/s, 68GB/s DDR3, eSRAM (32MB).

*could be wrong, this is just from a quick googleing.

GPU is like 3.7x as powerfull, 5.3x memory bandwidth (without factoring in the eDRAM vs eSRAM).

I dont even.... how do you reponde to something like this?

Do you actually believe what you just wrote?

a 28nm chip today that uses 110 watts while gameing (xbox one)... isnt suddenly going to be made into a 3-4watt Phone chip..... within 1 year.

Even with the jump from 28nm -> 16nm with FinFETs being a big one.... its not going to give you double rainbows and miracles like that.

Ya I'm thinking it will be similar as the jump from GC to Wii.

First i thought it would be x86 and on par but now after hearing many stuff and the comments from nintendo it will be a fusion thing me thinks

I see it being just as powerful as the Wii U, just a hell lot cheaper to produce and sell. $150 sounds good to me for a console that lacks basic modern console functionalities (both in the hardware and in its games), has nonexistant 3rd party support, and suffers from 6 month game droughts on a regular basis.

I disagree. Look at the xbox one specs compared to wii u, the difference is huge.

Nvidia shield console has 700 gflop power (approximately half of Xbox One power) and costs $199.

Probably.

The wii u gpu is'nt too bad but they have to get rid of that awful broadway expresso crap and at least use a somewhat competent cpu, one that isn't derived from the 14 year old gamecube.

Considering 3rd parties were pleased, I seriously doubt it will be weaker than the one. Unless it has some seriously awesome gimmick to it that everybody will love like the Wii.

We all know nintendo would sell the same thing at a much higher price to maximise profits. When "Nintendofied" a $199 piece of tech would become $299.