I really do not believe Sony is working on a new portable. Especially not something with as much power as the PS4, I'm not sure it's even possible, I mean something portable with the power of the PS4 would heat up really bad and since Nintendo dominates that market, investing huge amounts of money to develop something that will probably not sell too much is not a realistic idea. The lukewarm success of the Vita would not encourage Sony to work on a portable PS4. Also, Sony is already busy with amazing first party games, PS4 hardware, PS5 hardware, PSVR and PSVR2 hardware.

So you must forget about a new portable from Sony, it's definitely not coming.

1. Source the NUC is selling for 2-3x cost?

2. Why do you think adding ports adds a notable cost increase? Also, super adorable that you add the sim card port as a requirement, and more important than a headphone jack. Why are you having such a hard time coming to terms with the fact that almost no one besides you would be willing to use a PS4 Portable as a phone? Besides, PS4 Portable wouldn't use USB-C ports. They would charge and interface with PS4 controllers, wouldn't they. Unless Sony wants to start trying to popularizing USB-C to micro USB controllers, that shit isn't flying either. It's pretty obvious that even if Sony were to make PS4 portable it would have a completely different feature set than what exists in your imagination.

3. I don't know why you're talking about manufacturing processes and about what a PS4 portable would have to be based off of when you have demonstrated time and time again that you barely have a basic understanding of hardware design. This should be pretty obvious to anyone who hears that you believe that Sony use use their Playstation OS on their phones and car stereos as if that even makes a modicum of sense. No. A PS4 portable would not have to be based on a 7nm process, would not necessarily have improved performance, or a cost reduction. That all depends on the chip design, and the yields.

We are not "closer to a PS4 portable than some are thinking" just because you assert that we are. PS2 and PS3 went toe to toe with high end PCs on release? Since when? Only if you believe the marketing nonsense coming out from Sony when they released those consoles. At 2000 and 2006 when the PS2 and PS3 were released, a $2000 PC would outperform them easily. It's like It really still is a question of tech and pricing. It's the reason why no one develops video games that are optimized for Cray Supercomputers. It's why nVidia sells more graphics card models than the 1080 Ti. Who besides you is going to buy, say, a $600-$800 PS4 portable that is twice the size of a Switch and weighs 2 lbs? Sony is only going to make something they are confident tens of millions of people are willing to buy. Not just a handful of people. Making a device without mass appeal doesn't serve Sony at all.

Think about it, how does making a portable device that doesn't sell (like the Vita) strengthen their position on the market? It obviously doesn't. How would they be "preying" the market never changes by NOT making a handheld console after releasing two handhelds that the market more or less rejected? If anything, wouldn't releasing a PS4 Portable would be "preying" the market DID change? And maybe, maybe you might have had a point about Sony sitting on their laurels with the PlayStation brand if they didn't release the PS4 Pro and PSVR, but its pretty obvious they've already pushed the envelope plenty during of the life of the PS4. Now they're priming for a PS5. The dev kits are already in the wild. PS5 games have already begun development.  Even assuming the technology is there at a mass-market price point (it obviously isn't) it still probably doesn't not make any sense to try and sell a portable version of a console you're about to set on the back burner. It can be quite difficult to espouse the virtues of your new handheld PS4 when in the next breath you're trying to make a case why people should be moving away from their PS4s and into PS5s.

Really depends on the ports in question and how many you add and what features the SoC/Chipset has to  begin with.
For example... Say you want 4x USB 3.1 ports but the chipset only has the capacity for 2x ports.
You would need a secondary chip to provide those extra ports.

That sadly does cost.

The Physical ports themselves would likely only cost cents though.

To add to that... Whilst the Playstation 2 was rendering games at a pathetic 480P... The PC had 4k capability.
PC was in another league entirely... And will always be ahead of consoles.

Then don't go nVidia.
I think you might be a little bit confused about the conversation at hand though?

Are you comparing the common resolution of PS2 games with the maximal video output of PC games? How many PCs could play PC games in native 4K in the PS2 era?

Either compare common resolution (480p - 576i for PS2 games) against common resolution (1024x768 - 1280x1024) or compare their maximum capability (1080i for PS2 games, f.e. GT4) with maximum capability (1600x1200 at the beginning of the PS2 era, 4K at the end of the PS2 era).

Yes, the PC resolution was always higher (one of the reasons I always prefered PC versions of multiplatform games), but the difference wasn't 0.3 MPixel (640x480) vs. 8 MPixel (3840x2160).

What we are hypothesizing is a Portable device capable of playing ps4 digital titles.

This is not a Vita/psp situation where you buy individual games for this device. So there would b no splitting of workload for 2 different devices by developers, just slight bug fixes/tweaking which they already do for up rezed Pro edition.

Theoretically.

The techi discussion from the last few pages makes me hopeful that it is a tangible goal.

There is definitely a market for such a thing, in Japan alone it would make a killing.

1. All Intel products ever?

2. Consoles typically do not come with extra ports unless deemed necessary to the core functionality. The fact that the NUC is this close to having the kitchen sink thrown in, says it's not aimed at being a bare bones cheap consumer item. It's mostly being targeted at people with more money than brains, but sure, anyone can buy one if that's what floats your boat.

3. 14nm Raven Ridge would be tough to make happen with all other components considered in 2018. Not only would the performance vs battery life vs physical size be questionable, but the price at this time just doesn't seem to be doable without a subsidy. 7nm makes more sense in every way, when 7nm is truly ready, and when that would be is unknown. Odds are your talking late 2019 at the earliest, maybe, if you want even a ballpark consumer friendly price.

How can you say it doesn't sell if the product doesn't even exist yet as far as we know? Vita wasn't exactly a hit, but Switch has been so far, and looks to continue to be, so why if PS creates a similar product, could it not succeed? By succeed, I don't mean match Switch sales either, but it does have to make money. Just because PS would create another portable, that in no way means they hope the market will go that way, it more than likely means either they simply want some of Switch's mobile crowd, or they simply want to keep their existing 'mobile consoles seem awesome' customers from going to Switch, or heaven forbid a mobile XB eventually. If you were XB right now, wouldn't you be thinking about how a Switch type device could potentially expand your ecosystem, considering PS4 dominance and no more gens regardless of the hardware going forward? XB admitted they've been more than just tempted.

As for trying to sell a PS4 Portable while trying to hype up a next gen PS5, you have a point to a certain degree, but it would depend on when that PS5 is going to launch. The more time the PS4 Portable had on the market, the easier the transition to PS5 would be. Then again, what would be much much easier, if they could make it happen without holding PS5 back, would be to have a PS5 Portable with PS4 digital BC. This would also allow them more time to see how Switch plays out over a few years before jumping in if they have cold feet.

While in terms of pure profits, doubling down on dedicated home consoles, even if that means more SKU's, makes more sense. In terms of future customer and industry growth, allowing Nin to have the portable and hybrid market completely to itself seems like asking for trouble eventually. Looking at just the here and now, the way forward is obvious, but looking to the future changes that perspective. Building yourself a giant wall is only useful if you have an army to defend it. Many stationary archers are a must, but men at arms are also necessary, regardless the pennies lost.

If you can name a Playstation 2 game with a resolution that is substantially higher than 480P, I'm all ears.

Either way... The Playstation 2 couldn't hold a candle to the PC.

The PC even had Tessellation during the Playstation 2 era... Something that consoles wouldn't standardize at a hardware level until this generation.

Who cares? You are shifting the goal posts, which is a logical fallacy.
In short, that argument is irrelevant.

But then you aren't getting an accurate representation of the what the PC is capable of.
Plus I think you should actually look into how GT4 is actually rendered, it's not actually doing 1080i.

Plus the PC had 1080P CRT monitors in the mid 90's. So if 4k is to much for you, hows about plane jane 1080P? ;)

Except it was.
Again, the PC had 4k displays during the Playstation 2 era.
Heck, didn't want a 4k display? Then you could have grabbed a Matrox Graphics expansion module and ran with 3840×1024 or 5040×1050.

And PS2 games typically never exceeded 480P. Even the games that claimed they were "1080i" weren't actually 1080i.

Today the PC still exceeds 4k limit that the current "4k" twins support. 5k monitors are a thing.

Heh, sorry, my bad

Is your AMD chip stronger than Tegra X2? Soon X3 will come out along with New Switch in the next 2 years

There is no information on an X3 out there.
No product has been confirmed (that I know of).
Can you prove that another low power Tegra is being made?

Xavier is the closest thing to an X3 we know of.
Xavier doesn't look to be a good fit for the Switch.
https://wccftech.com/nvidia-drive-xavier-soc-detailed/

I don't know about you, but I don't think a 350mm^2 SoC going inside a Nintendo portable.
The Switch isn't an autonomous vehicle.