Uh, right. I think we should now discuss the specs of the Xbox1280 square. I predict 516GBs of ram, and 10 quad core 7.5 Ghz, CPU with Radeon 9 million.

Enough jokes aside, I'd say this seems like light years away. Maybe PS6 we'll see almost 64gb of ram.

The PS5 will feature three crossfired graphical units equivalent to Radeon 690x. It will have a 32 core proprietary Cell2 CPU (which has 2 cores reserved for the OS and 10 cores reserved for graphical processing to aid the GPUs), along with 128gb of GDDR6 RAM (32gb reserved for OS). The console will be able to output 120 fps on a 8K television, easily. You can also have up to ten games open at the same time.

To make this possible, Sony will remove the blu-ray drive to save money, and sell it at a slight loss @ $149.99.

You don't dream enough.

PS5 - 128GB of GDDR6 ram at 1408GB/s

PS6 - 1024GB (yes, 1TB) of GDDR7 ram at 11TB/s (yes)

Should I continue?

IT'S OVER 900!!!!

A single Radeon 7970 can push past 4 teraflops, considering I had three of those... It most certainly is not enough for 4k for demanding titles like Battlefield 4, Crysis 3, Metro 2033 and last light.
And this is only the start of the generation, games will eventually become more taxing.

As for Teraflops, if the Xbox One theoretically had the same amount of "Flops" as the Playstation 4 but retained it's memory hierachy, it would be slower in most cases (Especially when it hits the DDR3), faster in others (When it hits the eSRAM), hence it's pointless, there is no "best way" to compare different hardware, only logic and a decent understanding of the technology.
Besides flops is a way to gauge floating point arithmatic, you have integers to worry about too and on top of that GPU's have other fixed function hardware independent of it's flops like the Geometry units that can affect performance.

As for Crossfire, in dual-gpu scenario's it actually is very efficient, in most cases you can get 95-100% scaling.

Thus by extension a single Radeon 7970 may be enough for games at 2560x1440 and lower today and in some instances enough for some games at 4k (Older titles it could handle), but tomorrow is a completely different kettle of fish.
Running my games at 7680x1440, three Radeon 7970's stuggled in a ton of games, four Radeon R9 290's aren't even a guarantee for 60fps. (That's over 20 Teraflops folks!)
And 7680x1440 is only roughly 20% more pixels than 4k.

Erm, nope.

They will have the PS4 on sale for a good few years, but why replace it? All you need for cloud gaming is a platform with an internet connection. You say everywhere needs hyper fast internet? Again, wrong. You just need to match the bluray bit rate which many Western countries already can with their high end fibre packages (which will be standard in next few years).

I am very familiar with tech and programing and I can tell you that 12GB is absurd. OS's will become lighter and optimised due to phones and tablets. The only thing that will fatten them up are unnecessary extras such as voice command and booting up everything in the background for fast loading, although that technically is not the OS. As for Firefox, stop having so many tabs and videos open ^^. 

Just zip it about 4k. You don't understand it ergo end of debate. You have no idea about pixel rates etc so don't argue about it. You ignored my points about it being unseen and bluray which begs the question; what would make you change you mind?

Bluray bitrate is a whole lot more than Netflix bit rate lol. PS5 will not be a streaming console, no one but a few will be able to stream a native 4K game. The bit rate will be compressed to shit to get it running, its not gonna be possible in 6-7 years.

Good that you're familiar with tech but unfortunately you're not from the future, you were unable to predict what a next gen OS would need back in 2007. You'd probably say "OS needing more than the entire 512MB ram of the PS3 or 360? Preposterous!"

I understand your point about 4K but it doesnt make much sense. You claim that its benefits are visible on a +60" screen, it's not. I have a 50" 1080p plasma, sitting on it from 3 meters and it is not sharp enough, some people who have never seen a 1080p/4K screen in the same room from the same range will tell you otherwise.

4K is real and it's coming.

My guess would be,
low TDP APU
3.6ghz 12 core cpu
Radeon R10 370X GPU / or something roughly around that range
16gb system memory, 4 reserved for OS 12 for vram
hdmi 2.0 / displayport, 1080p/60fps standard but enough beans to do 1080p/60fps in 3d (120ghz), or 120hz mode on bundled/optional vr headset
Same architecture more less but a better memory controller and the inclusion of a 128mb esram bank for effects and postprocessing
no ethernet port only wireless.
full software b/c for ps4 titles.
1TB hdd as standard going up to 3TB for more expensive SKUs

Something extremely similar for the next xbox also, minus the VR stuff where they may branch of into seeking higher resolutions rather than sticking to 1080p performance in 3d and vr / 120hz.

I would not be surprised if either both or just the xbox was cheap hardware but subscription based OS, where you basically need psn+/xbl for the console to function, and/or standard software fare but MS charging for incrimental dashboard updates a-la windows 8.1, old system working find for newer games but retail disks with upgrade license being sold for the consoles themselves.

I remember your laughable thread about PS4-hardware with imaginary non-existant Cell2-processors... If I were you I would stop such threads...

http://mynintendonews.com/2013/01/31/nintendo-discusses-future-consoles/

By the way, you should work on your writing a bit. The bolded should have a comma or two, and you shouldn't say "and" more then once.

I'm not trying to be offensive, I just think I'd be more pleasant to read if your writing was more correct than it is.