There is also the reason high-end GPU cards cost up to double what a whole console does.

I think you confuse cost to MS/Sony and retail price to avg. consumers like us. AMD and NV sell the GPU, thermal components, power delivery components, PCB, and then AIBs add on additional costs such as warranty support, marketing, packaging costs, transportation costs, technical support, sales costs, etc. Then AIBs and retailers tack on additional profit margins for themselves. The end result is we have a graphics card that sells for $450-500 in retail channels that actually can be purchased / licensed by MS and Sony directly from AMD for ~$200. Since MS/Sony don't even need the PCB as the chips and memory/power delivery will be soldered to the console's motherboard, the costs are actually slightly less. 

For example, when the median price for a GTX580 was $482 in stores, NV sold all of the components for $210 to its board partners:

http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/1461/q2msa.gif

Therefore you can estimate that a GTX680/HD7970GE roughly costs $200-220 at most to purchase directly by MS/Sony as these GPUs sell for $400-450 in retail. Therefore, including a GPU like an HD7850 with 2GB of DDR5 is not unreasonable for a console that costs $399. After all, MS paid $141 directly for Xbox 360's GPU in 2005 to AMD/ATI when the total BOM for Xbox 360 was $525:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20051123214405.html

I am not buying the excuse that MS cannot afford to include an HD7770-7850 with GDDR5. Sounds like they are going the Nintendo route and trying to either minimize losses on their console, sell us gimmicks instead of high-end hardware or are simply being cheap.

Also, by the time PS4/Xbox 720 launch, a chip like HD7970 will be 'outdated' and last generation, which means the cost to manufacture it will be even lower by Q4 2013 than today's manufacturing market prices.

Again, MS supposedly paid $141 to purchase the entire Xbox 360 GPU sub-system but the current rumored HD7770Ghz level of GPU performance can be purchased in retail for just $100-110, which suggests that MS could purchase this GPU subsystem for $50-60. Sounds like we are getting the short end of the stick with the 720.

In practice, Xbox 720's DDR3 memory bandwidth seems to be estimated at just 68GB/sec. 1.76Tflops HD7850 has 154GB/sec:

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=678&card2=677

 If Sony retains GDDR5 for its GPU, Xbox 720's GPU is going to be significantly slower.

Umm what? No GDDR5 is not based on DDR3. THey are completly diferent technologies. According to the chart you posted 1 GB of GDDR5 was more than $30 to manufacture. Costs have undoubtedly dropped since that chart was posted like 2 years ago. But im guessing it is still around $20 per GB. MS and SONY will not pay for these components at cost. They will get a cheaper rate than the usual consumer BUT AMD will want to make a profit on these chips.

And no my PC cost alot more than $400 to manufacture... I buy everything Online and it cost alot more than $800 and I guarantee you i did not pay doube the manufacture cost.

To be short. Computer components are more expensive than you think to manufacture. And on top of manufacturing costs AMD wants to make a profit. MS and SONY and even Nintendo for that matter will not pay Retail price but they will pay well above the manufacturing price.

No, I indicated that the bells and whistles of a top-end GPU aren't conducive to a competitive console price. Even taking the unlikely markup you've described, $200 for GPU doesn't leave much budget for the rest of the system and profit, and I don't think anyone's hoping to ship a $599 console again. Nevertheless, your breakdown doesn't include the key component: the price of GDDR5.

There's such a thing as an "official rumor"?

Of course it does. Look at the chart again:

$32.35 for 1.5GB of GDDR5 is a part of the $210 price for GTX580 kit. $56.77 for 2GB of GDDR5 is a part of the $189.35 price for HD6970 kit. The prices at which these components are sold already include AMD/NV's profit margins. Everything from this point involves only AIBs/retailers mark-ups. That's what you see in retail. In other words, when AMD sells HD6970 chip for $85, it costs them probably $30-40 to manufacture the chip. The profit margins by original manufacturers of these parts are already baked in. This is essentially a price list for parts you have to pay AMD/NV if you are a 3rd party like their AIBs/MS/Sony. 

The charts referenced do not list manufacturing prices. They list component/graphics card kit selling prices from AMD/NV after AMD/NV added on their profits. The manufacturing prices for GPU chips are well below their $85-120 selling prices. When NV sells EVGA GTX580 kit for $210 "List Price", Nvidia's 51% Gross Margin is already included in this quote to EVGA. What happens from $210 to $499 MSRP are mark-ups (for packaging costs, warranty costs/RMA, selling costs, marketing costs, technical support, transportation costs, etc.) and profits tacked on by AIBs and retailers like Newegg.

The GPU you are buying for $500 on Newegg in reality only costs NV/AMD $100-120 to manufacture all the parts, and then they tack on their 40-50% Gross Margins and sell it for $190-220 to their partners (EVGA, Sapphire, MSI, HIS, Asus, etc.) who sell the GPUs in retail channels. Think of MS/Sony as cutting the AIBs/retailers middle-men because MS/Sony aren't interested in making a profit selling these GPUs to consumers. Meaning, they can purchase a $350-500 GPU directly from AMD/NV for $180-250. Mid-range $200-250 GPUs probably for half of their retail prices, etc.

So approx $160 for 8GB of GDDR5, I can see why MS hasn't specced it.

It is expensive but not that much. The GDDR5 pricing is from HD6970/580 generation (2011 model year). Prices on GDDR5 have fallen since then as HD6970 2GB was $369 but HD7950 3GB of GDDR5 sells for $280-300 in retail now. 3GB of GDDR5 was only present on a $550 GTX580 last generation. 

It's all about priorities. If MS is dead set on focusing on Kinect 2.0, well then unless they want to take a larger loss, Sony simply has more of the capital budget to spend on the components. It appears Sony just chose to prioritize the GPU and its memory sub-system while MS is focusing on features rather than outright graphics leadership. 

Well the won't

five hundred and ninety nine us dollers!