You might want to talk to IBM about that one since it is IBM, not Nintendo, that actually manufactures the CPU.  And given that, it kinda throws off the rest of your point.

IBM has a 32nm process, AMD uses it (they developed it together) for their new Llano APU, and they make it available to their customers:

"Commercial access to the bulk 90 nm, 65 nm, 45 nm and 32/28 nm advanced process technologies developed by the TDA is available through the Common Platform companies."

Unless you have information that they refused to allow Nintendo to use it then it is Nintendo who chose to use the more mature 45nm process than to use the 32nm one.

Power7 is manufactured on a 45 nm process.  And LLano is manufactured by Global Foundries, not IBM.

And Global Foundries developed their 32nm process with IBM and Samsung (google common platform). Look, I am not saying that their 32nm process is mature, quite the opposite, I am saying that Nintendo didn't use it because it is not mature enough for them but Nintendo's CPU is not being manufactured yet so what matters is what processes do they have available to design their processor now, and an IBM 32nm process is part of the choice. They could have chosen to design a 32nm part, like ARM chose to provide a 32nm design of the cortex, they didn't.

Nintendo design a CPU?  They don't deisgn CPU's.  That what they contract IBM for.   I'm completely baffled by what you are trying to suggest here.  IBM is selling their Power7 CPU's to Nintendo for use as the CPU in the Wii U.  If IBM manufactures them on 45nm process, then that's what Nintendo gets.  IBM does not produce their Power7 chips on any other process.

The only Power 3 processor that was produced using a 90nm process was the one in the Wii ...

The way Nintendo's agreements have worked in the past is that they buy the design of the processor and pay IBM to do the necessary R&D to fit Nintendo's needs. If Nintendo needs this processor to be manufactured using IBM's state of the art process and pays IBM to "make it happen" the process will be manufactured using IBM's state of the art process regardless of what other process Power7 processors use

Broadway isn't Power3 based but PowerPC 750 based.  Gekko (GC) is also PowerPC 750 based.  PowerPC 750 used both 180 and 90 nm processes just as the GC and Wii do.

Just a explanation for @Sri Lumpa and others.

There are no GPU process in 45nm... AMD, nVidia, TSMC, GlobalFondries, UMC, etc jumped to 40nm after 55nm. 45nm is just for CPU.

So the Wii GPU will be in 55nm, 40nm or 32nm (most probable for 2012 release).

You sir defenately own one of the slower/lower selling HD systems with HD technology and yet DOT OUT SELL 480p top selling 92 million and counting and you wish your HD slow selling system could do So "NO"  Nintendo wont be doing what your HD system are doing this Gen. (Not selling)....  P.S.  DS Rules!!

Commission IBM to design, same difference.

What I am suggesting is that what is available to us commercially (Power7 at 45nm) is not necessarily what is available to their partners for future products. We both agree that Nintendo's CPU is going to be based on some IBM Power architecture (probably a lower end power7 from what IBM hinted at with the eDRAM and same technology as watson references) and we know that IBM's 32nm process is available for chip design (whether you design your own chip or contract somebody else to do it) so there are no technical barrier to have a custom Power7 be designed for IBM's 32nm process.

That IBM doesn't yet produce power7 (or a successor) processors at 32nm today has no bearing as we are talking about what they have available today to design tomorrow's CPU's. IBM is not gonna tell their clients to wait until they have finished to design their power7 processor at 32nm before they begin designing theirs.

Anyway, this was just an example of Nintendo not using cutting edge technology. A good reason for not doing so is to avoid the yield ramp up problems typical of new processes. For example the Radeon HD 5000 series was seriously constrained at launch because TSMC's 40nm process was not mature enough (and it was even worth for Nvidia's 400 series at launch). Nintendo will need to sell a large number of console near the launch to make it an attractive platform to third parties, being out of stock because you are making loads of consoles and selling them all (like the Wii) is one thing, being out of stock because your partner cannot manufacture enough of a critical component is quite a different thing. 

Personally I would love to be proven wrong and to have Nintendo have their GPU manufactured at an aggressive process (32 or 28 nm) but I do not expect it to be so and the higher process will mean that a smaller processing power will fit in the same TDP.

@ethomaz: I know, I was not comparing specific process but generation, with 40 and 45  nm processes being close enough to be in the same generation, like PS3 and 360 are in the same generation even though they are different.

I was using Nintendo's choice of a 45nm process for its CPU as a good indication that it is more likely to choose a 40nm process for its GPU, which in turn has some implications wrt power dissipation especially when combined with the size of the console and the power usage of a stock 4870.

And yes, I know the 4870 is not at 40nm, I just have serious doubt about the feasibility of using a 4870 shrunk down to 40nm in such a small console. If I am wrong and they choose to use a 28nm process then that probably would be enough of a shrink to make it probable (imo).