Ask a silly question, but what about the video RAM on the graphics card? Surely for Battlefield 3 running at that res and settings you need a graphics card with > 2Gb of GDDR5 RAM. Just because Battlefield 3 only uses 1.8Gb of system RAM, doesn't it also need to use huge amounts of video RAM (which I assume is faster)?

So, looking at that picture I see only 1 main chip? Does that mean they've merged CPU/GPU on the same die?

That answers that one Thanks!

You could not be more wrong lol!   Comparing Crysis 2 on Ultra to Crysis 2 on console is the same as comparing MGS3 to MGS4.  The difference is massive!

Actually, there are very very few circumstances where a 2GHz dual core is more efficient than a 4GHz single core.

For one thing, many tasks cannot be broken down into two separate jobs, whereas two jobs can be multitasked with not much penalty (the granularity of context switching needs to be unnoticeable to humans, but this can still be millions of processor cycles).  Additionally, there is an overhead with two processors accessing the same shared resource (memory): they need to spend time negotiating its use.

The sense in which 2GHz dual cores are more efficient tends to be the power consumption angle.  Not that they can do more, but that a 4GHz processor requires smaller transistors (making it less economical to produce) and wastes more heat compared to two 2GHz processors, all other things being equal.  As a result you can possibly do more because ease of dual core design allows you to add performance enhancements so that all other things are not equal.

512 for OS is already overkill. I agree with those saying another 512 will be unlocked for games in the next yr or two =1.5 gb total.

"If you've been following gaming RUMORS"  I fixed it for you! 

Yeah we know its a weak system because people have no Idea what weak actually is (Is it about resolution? About polygons? About effects? World size? Ai?) Seriously most idiots still think 3ghz on CPU architecture X > 2ghz on cpu architecture Y.... You cannot compare MB/GB or MHZ/GHZ when the architecture is totally different.
My 800mhz phone can play HD movies   my old 3ghz PC cant.

So what makes a console strong? Is 10000 screens with 320x240 weaker than 1 screen with 1080p just because the pixels are not on 1 display?

For most people power = resolution.

But this is like comparing a f1 racer to a truck.  and saying only SPEED is important not how many tons can be moved at once.  So the racer is strong and the truck is weak. This makes no sense.....  Would you say the PSP is stronger than the 3ds? Just because the main screen has a higher resolution  and ignore that the 3ds has shaders etc the PSP can only dream of  + it has a second screen.

Well I guess we also know the WiiU is "weak" because all "news" come from sources and websites that never ever tried to generate clicks and of course all of them have a WiiU already and had enough time to "max"it.

I mean is the PS3/360 weak now that a little bit less weak console comes out? NO they are sufficient for what they are supposed to do.

P.S.  I dont see how your candy comparison works.  I mean If I could buy candy for 1 dollar and I have the chance to buy a similar piece of candy thats a little bit better than the 1 dollar candy and comes with a screen. I would pay 4 dollars!

you have been Galaki-ed

No it doesn't. From this angle, it looks like the 2 memory chips in the centre are also GDDR5 chips (if they use the new higher density chips, they could indeed get  away with only 4 memory chips). The chip labeled "GPU" is actually the chip carrier that contains the CPU and GPU, the chip labeled "CPU" is actually the large eDram chip (same idea as in the XBox360) . Look at the address bus in the other picture, all lines go to the chip carrier.