This is what has me very excited, and makes me think they will be able to pull this off on X86.  The Ryzen 7 2700U already has the CPU power to run circles around PS4, and it has more GPU power than the XBO, and this at 15watts on 14nm FinFET. Going to 7nm FinFET, which should be available in 2019, there is a very real possability of a PS4 Portable or a PS5 Line of devices that includes a Portable. At any rate there will be more than enough power to run PS4 games, and keep the power window under 10Watts, using X86 which is ideal for compatibility and work load. I really hope something is in the works, and Sony killed off Vita support in anticipation of unifying their home and mobile offerings under one architecture, one OS.

Well I personally wouldn't expect the handheld/hybrid to be the exact same specs as the PS4. The spec would matter more in terms of what the PS5 console specs were, since it would be in the PS5 family, but hopefully the handheld/hybrid would be able to play PS4 games.

Saying AMD can't do what Nvidia can do is something you can only base on what's presently on the market at the moment. Based on the article it seems AMD may have something competitive with the Tegra line, but maybe they don't, and maybe that's why they have been so quiet about it, in which case a hybrid/handheld PS4/PS5 may be more unlikely.

The article doesn't give much info, but even with a low core count (and not many CU's?), it says it's only 02w TDP, and since Tegra is in the range of 15w TDP, that K12 APU should be able to be beefed up quite a bit to hit 15w. Even the low end Ryzen mobile APU chips are in the 15w range and are really impressive in how well they can handle games. Like not that far from PS4 impressive. At 720p they should play perfectly on a PS handheld/hybrid. I don't see how a $300 PS "Switch" isn't possible in the next year or two, assuming they already have something preliminary they can work off of, on top of seeing Switch's design and success.

Not just about Nvidia can do things that AMD can't, the best mobile chip at the moment is not close enough to ps4 yet, and you are saying AMD will create a new mobile chip can play ps4 games cost 250$ and battery last 3 hours that even Nvidia can't do now?

Pretty much this.

In fact I think only APPLE can feasably do that at this moment (if we theow out the price factor). Apple is the king of high end mobile RISK APUs, and thier latest chip is only comperable with an optimized switch game running docked.

So let me get this straight. What your saying is that back in 2013, when XB announced the XB1, showed it's specs, and said it would cost $500, that since PS didn't announce PS4 until afterwards with much better specs, meant that it was definitely going to cost at least the same if not more than XB1? XB1 may have had the Kinect, but PS4 had the better hardware in more than a few aspects. How was PS able to sell PS4 for $400 while XB1 was $500?  How come when Kinect was dropped, the XB1 still cost $400, the same as PS4, even though it had weaker hardware? How was PS4 able to have stronger hardware than XB1, even when they used the same manufacturer and similar chip architecture's, yet PS4 was by far the better deal?

Just because the new Ryzen mobile chips are only in laptops but aren't in handhelds at the moment, doesn't mean it can't be done. It would be like saying Nin can't compete with PS and XB, because well just look at how much weaker Switch is compared to PS4 and XB1. It has nothing to do with what Nin can or can't do, it's what they decided to do that matters, and they decided mobility was more important than performance. Why didn't Nin use Ryzen mobile instead? Probably because it wasn't available yet for one, since it only launched recently. Not only did Nin get a good deal on Tegra, but it is also a proven chip, which Nin basically requires in their consoles. They don't really like to gamble on the internals of their hardware.

Why the PS handheld/hybrid has to be the exact same specs as PS4 doesn't make much sense either. If it was the exact same architecture than it would, since it would make putting PS4 games on it much easier, but with Ryzen+Vega, these newer arch's are much more efficient and don't require the same amount of power to achieve the same results.

So let me get this straight. What your saying is that back in 2013, when XB announced the XB1, showed it's specs, and said it would cost $500, that since PS didn't announce PS4 until afterwards with much better specs, meant that it was definitely going to cost at least the same if not more than XB1? XB1 may have had the Kinect, but PS4 had the better hardware in more than a few aspects. How was PS able to sell PS4 for $400 while XB1 was $500?  How come when Kinect was dropped, the XB1 still cost $400, the same as PS4, even though it had weaker hardware? How was PS4 able to have stronger hardware than XB1, even when they used the same manufacturer and similar chip architecture's, yet PS4 was by far the better deal?

Just because the new Ryzen mobile chips are only in laptops but aren't in handhelds at the moment, doesn't mean it can't be done. It would be like saying Nin can't compete with PS and XB, because well just look at how much weaker Switch is compared to PS4 and XB1. It has nothing to do with what Nin can or can't do, it's what they decided to do that matters, and they decided mobility was more important than performance. Why didn't Nin use Ryzen mobile instead? Probably because it wasn't available yet for one, since it only launched recently. Not only did Nin get a good deal on Tegra, but it is also a proven chip, which Nin basically requires in their consoles. They don't really like to gamble on the internals of their hardware.

Why the PS handheld/hybrid has to be the exact same specs as PS4 doesn't make much sense either. If it was the exact same architecture than it would, since it would make putting PS4 games on it much easier, but with Ryzen+Vega, these newer arch's are much more efficient and don't require the same amount of power to achieve the same results.