Hopefully that will change as we finally move to 64BIt games, aparently going forward some Frosbyte engine games will require 64Bit for example. Once we get past the 32Bit wall I imagine that we will easily shoot past 4GB RAM+VRAM and get more seemless worlds with no loading and a lot less popin. Consoles that are not limited to less than 512MB should help move it along a lot. 

OT: There is no real new information other than 1GB of RAM for the OS and the speed of the disc drive which is very nice, power draw and internal storage.

Everything else was already pretty heavily rumoured or already confirmed, 25GB discs, 1GB RAM for games, semi modern customised AMD GPU bassed on R700 with GPGPU, 3 core custom IBM CPU with some form of Power 7 tech. 

There is no way of gauging how performance stacks up at all without architecture and clock speed details.

Likely he means that beyond a certain point, more RAM is so utterly negligible that normal performance-margin-of-error factors can cause it to perform slightly slower than systems with 75% of the RAM.

For sure if we count VRAM as well. Hell I've seen benches of games that go over 2 GB of VRAM alone. Metro 2033 maxed on 3 screens is doing 2.5 GB of VRAM. 

But GPU RAM aside,  I doubt games will ever use more than 4 GB of system RAM. Hell even 2 GB seems like a strech for next gen. 

Well Nintendo usally use a fab one step behind the latest for yeild reasons so the GPU is probably 40nm not 28nm. Also there is  decent chance that the Wii U uses some form of SoC/APU design considering the size of the console, so could be the same 45nm as the CPU in theory (that is what AMD does for their APUs). 

Doubt it, power supplies generally lose efficiency beyond 50-60% load. So 45w peak load is about ideal for a 75w peak power supply. The PS3 phats had a 380w powersuply but under load it only consumed around 200w, for example.

Well for consoles we are talking combined and as far as memory addressing goes in applications it's all takes up address space. In a 32Bit game if it chewed through 2GB of VRAM then it would technically only be able to address 2GB of system RAM, hence why most games today (which are mostly 32Bit) won't go past ~3GB of RAM usage.

"nitpicking" said the guy from the the last of us pax demo thread searching for every small thing which wasn't perfect...

and no, i don't try to do that, i just want to buy a wii u and i would prefer one with a hdd in the console even if i would have to pay 50 bucks more for a 250gb hdd console or so instead of hiding a hdd anywhere behind anything. and i wouldn't need  flash memory for that. i would be totally fine to get what i already have in two other consoles and my hdd i will have to use now for the wii u is also no flash memory so why do you think the 250gb drive had to be one then?

and that's obviously only what i would prefer and would like to see, not what i say nintendo should have done for everyone, for me it would be better, maybe for most it wouldn't.

btw it still stands that i can buy a 250gb new for 50 bucks (just check amazon as example, 50 for 250gb and 58 for 320gb) or even less for the 360 and don't have to buy a 120gb refurbished for that price. that's what you said to compare it with "120gb sata for 20 bucks" and there is a little difference between 120gb refurbished for 50 bucks or 250gb new for 50 bucks. it's still more expensive like i already said but that makes it double the gb for the same price and new instead of refurbished, i would say that makes at least 50% difference to what you said first^^

and i didn't want to make more out of it as it reall yis, i just wanted to say that you can get it way cheaper as you said and that i would prefer a hdd, not more and it was nothing against nintendo or whatever.

Cool, i'll probably get a 500 gb hard drive for it then, when I get my Wii U. I should never need to expand my memory ever again then

Yeah, but there is a big difference between 32 bit and 64 bit games performance. If this benchmark is any indication http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ram-memory-upgrade,2778-8.html  Look at HL2 32bit vs 64bit.

I can get a 1tb drive for 70 dollars. A 320gb new xbox drive is around 60 dollars.  How is that not insanely overpriced?  I paid 50 for my 750GB desktop drive a year ago and 50 for my 500gb 2 years ago.  So you're saying I should have to pay the same price for half th espace?  Also the 250gb in the Wii-U would have to be nand due to the way the console was designed.  There is no place for a physical drive.  That's why.

i said now two times that it still costs more as a normal hdd but is way cheaper as you said first. what's the problem to understand there? i did never say that it isn't maybe still overpriced.

and yes, it wouldn't fit in a wii u, if it would be like i want the whole console would look different then which i obviously would accept then...

so, i would like to have a wii u with hdd even if the console would look different then. it was just about what would be perfect for me, not what other people want or if this would be worse for 95% of people so no, i don't say you should pay the same for half the space, no clue why you think i talk about you or others. i would prefer a console with hdd so i wouldn't have to hide one anywhere even if it would cost me more then because it would look better to me. i also pay more for a clock if i like the look more even if the time isn't more accurate and it is only a design aspect to pay more.

on average i buy maybe 50 new games per console + all the other stuff in the lifespan of the console. 50€ more or less aren't really what i care about.