Consoles tend to have about 1/4 to 1/16 as much memory as PCs of a similar age so 1GB to 2GB of memory would be expected of consoles released this generation. The reasons consoles tend to use less memory is they typically use higher cost memory that has much lower latency and higher bandwith than comparable PCs.

2GB of GDDR5 is what I would have expected from the Wii U, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was as low as 1GB

Thanks.

That eDRAM that's included in the processor is one of those "specific pool" that you mention, right?

Also, isn't that 1.1GB at Battlefield the system RAM, not the whole RAM? I've read stories/reviews that show 1.5 GB cards running short of RAM trying to max that game, albeit at resolutions higher than 1080p.

And rumour was that they reserved those 512MB for the OS, how much will it really use at launch?

Questions. Questions. Questions.

I could see a bundle being released with cables/HDD or a 3rd party game, namely AC3 or Zombi U.

Well, that's something else itself.  The 2 pools I was referring too are system RAM and video RAM.   The PC equivelents are the DDR3 you put in your RAM slots and the GDDR5 that is included on your graphics card.

Yes, that 1.1 GB is system RAM, as I noted, which coupled with a 1.5 GB GDDR5 GPU shows that BF3 at highest resolutions with highest settings (both are things no next generation console will be doing) would use at most 2.6 GB....and that's if it using 100% of the video RAM.   And remember, this is a PC game which means the code is not optimised specifically for any dedicated hardware like a console is. 

512 MB for a console OS is beyond proposterous.  I can run Windows 7 on 512 MB.

It should also be noted that things liek texture streaming greatly reduce the need for RAM.   It could also be said that a protion of the 8 GB of onboard Flash RAM could be used as a scratch pad.   A scratch pad is like extra RAM.  Devs could use up any free portion of the 8 GB making the whole RAM issue moot.

I hope so, I just find the 512MB OS rumour worrying.

And can flash memory be used to stream like a hard drive? Because if so, why didn't Wii games do that?

The 512 MB for an OS rumor should be forgotten.  Sounds like someone wanting hits to their website or had no idea what they were talking about to begin with.  Rumors are supposed to have some level of plausbility to begin with and 512 MB for a console OS simply isn't plausible.

It has to be densiged that way from the beginning.   Now I'm not saying the Wii U's 8 GB of onboard Flash RAM will be open to use as a scratch pad, just pointing out that it's possible it could and if so it would render the RAM debate irrelevent.

So the end result is that, 1.5 GB (event if it goes down to 1.2-1.3 due to Nintendo over exagerating their OS) should be enough. At least for now.

Good.

Pretty much.   Especially with texture streaming becoming more common.  

EDIT:  This should assuage your fears.

"The Wii U is a nice console to work with because it's got so much RAM in comparison [to the PS3 and Xbox 360]," another Wii U developer, who wished to remain anonymous, told us. "For E3 we simply dumped the whole game into memory and never once used the disc after the content was loaded from it."

I was not suggesting the OS usage will be higher but lower, the rumours do say "up to".