Really? oh wait your just a troll.

- Moderated, Carl

NX is a PLATFORM. Not a single device. "Fusion" just means that there is a single code base because the OS is basically the same. 

It is wise from Nintendo to base it on Linux with some Android frameworks. This way the games could also run on mobiles without big proting efforts.

NX doesn't mean that only a single screen etc. can be used. Its just an universal API to get how many screens etc. are there to utilize

As mobile is the real threat to Nintendo we can expect to see a 3DS successor first. The Wii U numbers are "OK" as the 3DS is the one who makes the money. And Nintendo has to make sure that those won't fall flat...

Of course ARM will go faster - 2 times the performance at half the price every four years is the rule which applies here too.

So it is foreseeable when an ARM APU will beat what is in PS4 and XOne...

But: x86 doesn't sleep.

Both true next-gen AMD x86 and ARM designs will feature HBM and thus will be on par with (ARM) or draw circles around (x86) PS4 graphics.

I guess Amazon will use the ARM design while Facebook goes for the x86 APU to bring their Oculus system to the masses.

About Intel CPU prices: we all know that Intel asks for that amount of money they think they can get. At least in the x86 area.

If AMD x86 cores would be more competitive prices would drop dramatically. But AMD is a shadow of its former self.

And AMD will cease to exists if Intel finally gets some real graphics chip. A simple thing would be to buy NVidia - but besides the costs - why would Intel like to have an antitrust case against it?

Intel does fine - and we will see within the next years that they will get their low power x86 offerings on par with ARM...

Cpu architecture limits which operating systems can run. Just compare Windows RT with Windows for X86 platforms. I never implied NX was a single console. Hence my terminology like "form factor." Like an android device or apple device the games will be shared but the basic architecture must be compatible for good performance with no port necessary.

you do know that these graphs mean very little, because

"Benchmarks between different devices (and classes of devices) as well as different operating systems are to be taken with a huge grain of salt as the potential for significant errors and deviations is high (e.g. due to different display resolutions, but chiefly due to different compilers and optimizations of the cross-platform benchmarks we used), even when extreme caution is exercised."

right?

Why not. ARM focus is low power CPUs, and they do it so much better then Intel in terms of performance per watt. I'm quite sure they could design more powerful CPU, just based on the current tech. It's just isn't their main business goal as they make fortune on mobile chips.

They tell us enough for the purpose of this discussion: that Jaguar is as weak as AMD gets and that top mobile processors in 2013 were competitive, regardless of the exact results. Put an i7 or a Xeon on that graph and I am sure we will see a general proportional relative difference. Plus any future console comparison will still have these same distinctions so it is perfectly applicable. 

You need to follow the tech.

ARM will always optimize for low power and sacrifice performance for it. As such they're useless for non-mobile devices. They're not doing magic, they will always have the lower performance than any Intel, AMD or Nvidia solution that focuses on performance.

Add to that that Intel and Nvidia are currently doing giant leaps when it comes to performance per watt. If anything, I can see ARM be replaced by Intel and Nvidia in the future rather than the other way around.