I'd still prefer two devices: A home console and a handheld that share the same OS and play the same games at different settings (cartridges instead of Blu-Rays, Cross-Buy, Cross-Play, one account for both devices). It would be way more comfortable for the user to just pick the product he/she likes instead of forcing people to buy a tablet.

The tablet sounds like a huge compromise to me and would be expensive for a handheld console. If Nintendo makes two devices instead, a home console and a handheld, they could have a home console as powerful as a PS4 that's really small (no Blu-Ray drive and no physical hard drive!) and sell that for $250-300. The handheld could be $199 at launch. Get a free game if you buy both machines. But I guess that's just wishful thinking at this point.

A source tell me, rx 460/470 customised... I can't confirm anything, but he told me 2 différents résolutions for home console games, i suppose 1080 on TV and 720 for streaming to handheld devices

I doubt Nintendo intentionally missed the holiday, so by delay we mean why Nintendo couldn't reach the ideal date of holiday 2016. Nintendo even suggested that the only reason that its launching in march is so all the software will be ready so a internal delay seems like it definietly happened. 

Oh dear...AMD just can't keep their shit together. 480's wattage was really ridiculous compared to nVidia, glad that they've finally managed to sort it out, but FFS, that consumer trust is going the way of dodos for them.

There is no one single info/rumour saying that NX is using AMD, all point that NX is Nvidia Tegra based.

That's blowing it out of proportion I think. :P

These chips aren't meant for handheld devices.

It's not as uncommon as you think.
Whenever a new node is used, there are tweaks to the process as time goes on.
28nm for example went from 250w on the 7970 to the FuryX at 275w... Transister counts doubled. - And there was a performance difference of 40% to 300% depending on benchmark.

Global Foundries is using Samsung technolgy anyway, Samsung managed to reduce power consumption by 15% and increase switching speed by 15% when it moved from it's LPE (Low-Power-Early) to LPP (Low-Power-Plus) process. Aka. 2nd Generation Samsung 14nm.

This is likely based on the 3rd Generation Samsung 14nm process known as LPC (Low-Power Compact).

It will be competitive in the mainstream markets most likely, not the high-end, just like Polaris.

Nintendo wouldn't be using an embedded chip. They will likely opt for a Semi-Custom design.

How do you know it's close to the Xbox 1 in terms of performance or better than a Wii U? There is more to performance than flops.

Samsung had laid out their fabrication plans well in advance, Global Foundries licenses Samsung's technology in it's Fabs, Nintendo would have been aware of this for a long time.

I hope Nintendo doesn't go with nVidia and goes with high-end AMD hardware in a fixed-console, if the console is going to be mobile Centric, then I hope it is nVidia or an ARM chip using a fully-fledged Bifrost GPU.

Sony will likely release a revision to take advantage of this new fabrication process in time, all these chips are being made by the same company remember.

I would be all for a 4k-Bluray support.
The Playstation 4 had the potential to be the ultimate Multimedia hub for the home, but they gave that opportunity away to Microsoft with the lack of CD and 4k Blu-Ray support.
A PS4 Pro Slim could turn that around.

Polaris can hit those flop numbers as well with aggressive clocks and binning.
Which brings home the point that Polaris and Vega with the same "Flops" will still perform very differently, Microsoft will go with whatever is the most  price/performance efficient at the time.

The Fabrication "rumors" are the real legitimate tidbit.

I was legitimately looking at 10-Core Xeon's today. Because it would be cheaper than upgrading to LGA 2011-3~ *Grumbles*

Depends on what they are comparing it to.
This is the 3rd Generation 14nm Finfet Process by Samsung.
The 2nd Generation brought a 15% improvement.
Thus if it's improvement is a 50% increase against the 1st generation 14nm process, then it's only a 35% increase from the 2nd generation 14nm process.

Polaris is actually energy efficient. And does well with what it is given.

The problem is people are comparing it against nVidia, nVidia has had a massive edge in efficiency since Maxwell, when nVidia introduced their tiled based approach and took on some things they learned from building Tegra.

Simply put, nVidia is just better. - Will this likely change the landscape in favor of AMD in regards to price/power/performance? Not likely. That is probably a few years away yet.

Comparing chips on flops alone is highly inaccurate.

It's 176. The Wii U is more efficient which is why, when games are made it's-way, it can have a massive lead over the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 graphically.

We cannot forget either that Embedded products tend to not be aggressively binned. They need to be built for reliability first, so they usually run with more volts than they need.

There is probably more then one raison for delayed...
A another one could be have better production if it is a succès, make anough console for the end of 2017... Not having the problem of Wii without stock...
A rumors speak about 10 millions consoles... for Wii, it was 6 millions...

One of the huge issues that made it a certainty that it was 176 gflops is the wii u uses a older cheaper 40nm fabrication process which is more power hungry and yet its power consumption was far too low to be 352 gflops. It simply didn't consume enough power. The main reason people were believing it was 352 gflops was if anything a simple belief that Nintendo wouldn't release a console in 2012 that was of such low performance as 176 gflops but then the cpu performance was evidently much weaker from day one.

Still even at 176 gflops still more powerful than 360 and PS3 gpu's. It has later much more efficient architecture. In one generation Radeon gpu's become 30% more efficient and the wii u has 32MB of ultra fast memory for the gpu. It's probably still overall more powerful unlike the cpu performance which is much weaker than both 360 and PS3.

That's what worries me about the NX its hard to predict how low Nintendo will go in performance terms. Even if they go for a decent chipset in theory how much performance will they strip off it by lowering speeds, reducing features or using cheap slow memory chips?

I'm going to assume very low performance unless there is evidence to the contrary and I would suggest other's do the same rather than give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt when the first NX games show weak performance, missing graphic features etc.

Do you have any source for the 176 part, the only place I read about it was from neogaf forums...

Actually, it was confirmed that nVidia was the chip manufacturer for NX, not AMD as people previously speculated.