answering to both..... it's almost a given it won't be a processor out on the shelves to mass market.... once again you are looking at what is out today... when we are talking about something that has to be on par with the mid range market in 10 years.... t will be nothing less than an 8 core... in terms of power... like you said 16 core is not especially great.... but it will be more about how you developpe for it.... true the GPU is important then again we know nothing about what they wanna do and how it will be dev on....

what i'm saying is a rumor like a 16 core is more believable than looking at anything out today.... and cooling a 16 core in 19 nanometer die or lower is not that hard especially with new cheap efficient compact water cooling systems out today....

what i'm saying is regardless if it's a vaiable option or even a smart one something of that magnitude is anything but crazy..... just look at intel dev and release  schedule in the next 10 years we'll hit 16 core or equivalent and way over 4 Ghz way before 2020 at the rythme they have right now.... they should have a 10 core over 4.5ghz out before the end of 2013 mid 2014 for mainstream high performance desktop.... pretty sure 10 core have been out for lil bit now for servers.... so a risc powerpc architecture under 19 nano with 16 is way more than a possibility by the end of 2013.... not that i'm saying it will happen what i'm saying something of equivalent wow effect is to expect.... anything below 8 cores and i'm going back to pc gaming... 

256MB EDRAM? Are you crazy? An EDRAM chip of that size is reticle limited, it would be near 600 mm2, bigger than the biggest nVidia graphic card chips. It's unfeasible at 28 or 22 nm.

Two points.  19 nanometer isn't a standard anywhere, 22nm is the cutting edge and it won't be available for a while.  

4GHz is NOT going to happen because of physical limits.  Without getting into spintronics you just aren't going to get there with a viable solution.  You hit the limits of quantum mechanics because things like quantum tunneling through well walls come into play.  Realize that 3Ghz was easy in 2002, ten years later we are still there.  There is a great reason for that, it just isn't worth the cost, or the innefficiencies.  

I also don't think you understand this topic very well.  4 cores in a CPU is good enough to run the absolute best games out at the moment.  The CPU is no longer the bottleneck. The interconnects between the CPU and GPU, and the GPU itself is where the action is these days.  8 cores wont do much for you if you don't have a really good interconnect, high cache, and really good GPU.  CPUs are not good at processing graphics compared to a dedicated GPU.  

Also, the 3 core chip in the 360 isn't even on par with the low end i3's out today.  With a low level i3 and a $100 gfx card you can get better performance than a 360, provided of course that you have a decent mother board and good RAM.  Don't buy into "MORE CORES IS ALWAYS BETTER!!!!!"  Without solid programming to utilize these cores they actually can negatively affect performance.  Also, realize that right now devs are folding left and right because investment in games has had to shoot up to take advantage of graphics fidelity.  If you move to these SUPER SPEC LEVELS!!!! you are going to get a lot more boring selection of high end games because devs and publishers aren't going to want to take too many $100-$200 million chances.  

Microsoft has been in the tech game for a LOOOOOOOOONG time.  Expect them to deliver something powerful, but not over the top.  And endimion, I invite you to, if you have a PC of this caliber, open task manager at a given time and see how many of your 4 or 6 cores are being used.  Spoiler alert, it isnt more than 2 unless you are running high fidelity modeling, video editing, or scientific software.  I have a Quad Core i7 system with a Quattro Card in my Workstation at my job, and only when I run SolidWorks, The Adobe Suite, Matlab, and other stuff at the same time do I ever see all 8 threads being used at all.  When I play a game (after hours of course) I generally am only pegging one or two cores.  Writing software to take advantage of more than one core at a time is not an easy task with current methodologies.  It is very doable, but great care must be taken to insure that syncronization errors don't occur.  In an Xbox, I would see one core for the OS, one for Kinect, one for the main game (maybe two), and any remaining for assisting the GPU (maybe, still doesn't sound right).  Again, I think where the real improvements will be seen is the GPU, you guys are missing the mark with this "NEEDS 15562345 CORES OR ELSE!!!!!"

once again i was talking in term of iconographic power increase.... meaning that double todays capacity for something coming out in almost 2 years with th hope to old at least 8.... is anything but over the top.... dev cost is a complete non issue.... first inflation, economy of scale etc will take care of it and like you said they don't have to dev for X core..... plus i strongly believe in all digital chapterized games and dlc package.... now you guys have also to realize that i have never asked gazilions cores for better graphics you guys are rubing it hard on gfx again.... but to me today games are not lacking their the most...... physics, AI... need a boost... sound spacialization.... multimedia etc.... concretely ultimately we should see console with multi screen capability.... with 1080p 3d at 60fps... full body tracking with lag under 50ms for fingers in mid field.... being able to record avatar in hd while i play dance central in 3d at 4 against 4 on 2 screens while we videochat with friends in japan and watch titanic 3d in small overlay windows....... or have a game like skyrim with everything loaded at launch indoors included, monsters etc... have the entire eco system age accordingly and damage i or they've done to the environement stay persistant.... an actual weather system with real randome event causing casualties.... etc well a lot of possibilities.... and yeah it will incure huge cost.... on the long run it will be the same story as usual... we'lll pick up a game from last gen and say damn that feels old school.... if it's to have the top of today for 2014 annd suppose to last until 2020 there is no point of pushing new hardware yet then....

Ok, well honestly, physics is best done in a GPU too, because GPUs handle floating point numbers and linear algebra MUCH better and more efficiently than CPUs. My company specializes in image improvement for military and industrial applications. We use clusters of GPUs to accomplish what you usually would need a run of the mill super computer to do. Really with good programming and a solid code base physics should be easy with a modern GPU. Xbox and PS3 have REALLY bad GPUs because since the time that they were released, GPU tech has jumped as much as CPU tech did in between PS and PS2.

Also, what you are talking about is an enthusiast usage pattern. Hardware that powerful is top of the line desktop stuff. Save your money and just build a PC. Also, the amount of memory that you would need to have in your machine to have Skyrim's environment age like I think you want to would be insane. Probably 48Gb would do what you want. I have a work PC with this much memory, it is for doing complex, physical modeling of changing environments, and what the effects are on different imaging modalities (I know this is vague, and confusing, purposely so, I don't want to get fired for violating my NDA, sorry). This would do well to simulate a changing world and do things like keep track of damage to trees, how they grow afterwards, changing landscape due to storms and such.

What you are talking about is probably 2020 tech as far as game consoles go.

from what we know now.will the xbox 720 be more powerfull then the wii u

From what we know now it could go any way since nothing is confirmed on either side. But the Xbox 4 is rumored to be more powerful.

come on e3 bring on the next gen system

It wont happen.
1st games wouldn't use the threads of 16 cores
2nd cost, an 8core AMD is like $300,
3rd the reason MS games look better then PS3 games ( when multiplatform) is because xbox 360 is the standard for games this gen, games are made for the 360 then ported to PS3. fanboys and other people will bring up the few titles that do not follow this but its true face it. look at basically every big time multiplatform game that doesn't come out of japan and you will see the 360 version either looking better or the same and almost always running smoother as well.

IF MS doesn't have this again they will be in trouble. My guess is 4 cores. 3 for games 1 for other stuff.

with these rumor specs is it stronger than the will u and ps4