People don't understand that ps4 could cost $299 already. in 2017, it will be able to cost $199. any company (nintendo included) can release a home console in 2017 or late 2016 for $299-$349 and considerably more powerfull than a ps4.

ps4 power is the minimum we can expect IF the console has a revolutionary thing like he wii. if not, it will be considerably ahead of the last gen.

I think NX will be more powerful than X1; I can't believe otherwise.

I think it depends more on power than cost for Nintendo. They are obsessed with small form-factors and low power-consumption. 

by 2017, x1 could retail for sub $199 numbers. it's only natural that nintendo canmake an afordable console that's also quite ahead of the previous gen, just like wii u.

Very, very hard to exist 800 GFLOPS at only 6 watts or so, you do mean. I hope you are aware 99% of the time portable SoCs ran at half speed or lower of their theoretical capacity. Iris Pro 6200 is more likely to ran at actual 800 GFLOPS and probably consumes the beefier part of the 65-95W TDP of the newest Intel 14nm chips, for instance. Unless PowerVR is running "fake"-FLOPS like TeraScale or the older PowerPCs, meaning lots of raw number-crunching, but not even as remotely efficient as chips from different architectures with similar FLOPS count.

For mobile designs, strangely the 28nm Snapdragons are still at or very near the crown on terms of efficiency, so maybe Nintendo could base something off that, if they forego AMD, which I don't think it's going to happen, even with the news increasingly pointing to a more mobile, Android-like design.

True, but by 2016, this shouldn't be too hard to accomplish. Also, 3d transistors will likely become prevalent allowing for the condensing of hardware- not to mention the rise of power vs the falling of electrical consumption, which is working in well... everyone's favor. 

They aren't obsessed with small form factor and low power consumption they are obsessed with hardware with high profit margins hence low performance hardware sold at a high price which so happens to be the type of hardware that is small form-factor and low power consumption.

The wii u for example could easily have used 28nm fabrication chipset like the xbone and ps4 which would enable a smaller form factor and lower power consumption but instead they used 45nm fabrication which is more power hungry and produces more heat however because of the very low performance level of the wii u it didn't matter and not much heat or power was consumed.

The wii u design could easily have achieved far lower power consumption and been more compact using components of slightly higher cost. You have to remember the wii u design is very low performance not even comparing well to 360 and PS3 for many parts of its specification.

your BS never ends. Always lying about wii u's hardware power.

go troll elsewhere.

My opinion is backed up by evidence. Your opinion is not, that makes you the troll.  You made the point Nintendo are obsessed with a small form factor and low power consumption. If they were so obsessed they would have used a medium cost fabrication process rather than a low cost fabrication process.

To be obsessed with something means to work towards that goal very strongly, Nintendo most certainly didn't do that. However what they did do was make use of low performance components in the wii u for example the low bandwidth 12.8gb/s memory chips, 45nm fabrication process which clearly shows low price as their priority. This is not complicated to work out and these low cost memory chips are clearly branded and visible on the pcb.

You have tried to get away with a misleading comment in your defence of Nintendo. Why you need to defend Nintendo I don't know but I corrected incase anyone was stupid enough to believe your opinion which has no factual basis.

You can build low-cost hardware that is more capable. Gamecube was the perfect example of this (and it also had the other benefits.) Power consumption is a decision of Nintendo's, independent of cost. If Nintendo went x86 they likely would have had an easier time to get good performance out of low-power hungry hardware. Or even if Nintendo disregarded power-consumption and form-factor they could have made a more capable, yet cheap platform, albeit not as capable as the PS4/XBO. If Nintendo's goals were to reduce cost they would have never constructed the gamepad the way they had. I'm not too cerrtain that what Nintendo paid for in R&D and also what they pay in manufacturing costs is that much cheaper than what MS/Sony pay for their Jaguars (which are very cheap CPU's.) And the biggest advantage is that a better CPU alleviates GPU bottlenecks, and Nintendo would've been able to go with a better GPU for a similar price and power-consumption than they had. As GPU prices tend to be quite different from actual performance gained.

Also the WIi U is without a doubt more capable and versatile than the 360 and PS3.  The only part which doesn't compete so well is the CPU. It still gets the job done, sufficiently, though if one tailors one's ports well.