What's your point? My viewpoint is that Nintendo can support a unified platform - "NX eco-system" with a portable NX and a home console NX by incorporating X86 APU + ARM SoC inside the home console. That allows for incredible flexibility for backwards compabitility for future Nintendo consoles after the NX, extremely smooth integration with the next generation NX handheld, and the CPU+GPU horsepower required for cross-platform PS4/XB1/PC games that will be released from 2016-2020.

You keep ignoring facts and being in denial about how slow ARM SoCs are for graphics compared to current Xbox 1/PS4 consoles and PCs.

Microsoft Surface Pro 3 is an absolute joke graphics wise compared to the graphics chips in Xbox One and PS4. The A9X SoC would get wiped out by whatever AMD has ready for Nintendo in 2016. The A9X would be lucky to barely beat a Surface Pro 3, whose GPU is miles behind AMD's HD7790 (Xbox 1) and PS4's HD7850+. 

Today, AMD announced even bigger breakthroughs of their product line in terms performance/watt in small form factors.

http://videocardz.com/57574/amd-expands-embedded-graphics-lineup

That means AMD already has 1.5-3TFlops GPUs with 4-8GB of GDDR5 in a 75-95W power usage envelope, and in very compact form factors too. In this case, since we are still discussing Graphics Core Next (GCN), we can directly compare the single precision metrics with those of Xbox 1 and PS4. If AMD drops the GPU clocks and/or create a custom cut-down design from these more powerful embedded solutions for Nintendo's needs, there is no reason they can't get that power consumption even lower.  There will be no ARM-derived SOC in 2016 that would have a chance to be able to compete with a custom-tailored AMD APU/embedded GPU (such as variants above) as far as overall CPU+GPU graphics performance goes. 

If Nintendo only includes an ARM-derived SOC in their NX home console, it will be a failure with crappy graphis and performance -- essentially a repeat of Wii / Wii U. While they do not need to outright beat Xbox One and PS4's APUs in terms of overall performance, they have to be close enough so that 3rd party developers can easily port x86 cross-platform games to the NX. 

We already know that Nintendo isn't large enough to pump up tens of 1st party Nintendo titles. Therefore, Nintendo's own games are not sufficient to sustain the console's image/sales. If Nintendo does something stupid shoves an ARM SOC inside the NX home console and prices it at $199, that would mean they will have thrown in the towel with hardcore console gamers and are primarily interested in targeting kids and pre-teens or casuals. The problem with that strategy is that a lot of those gamers are perfectly fine enjoying free to play / free casual games on various portable devices such as their smartphones or tablets. 

Furthermore, you are betting pretty hard against all logical rumors so far that keep suggesting that AMD has won the contract for Nintendo's NX console. AMD does not make ARM SOCs that can even match an A9X and actually has no ARM SOC scheduled to launch in 2016. So all of your projections and theories in this thread sound like wishful thinking/unjustified opinion. 

Again, even the A9X SOC would get its face wiped by a modern 2016 AMD APU. The only question here is how much $ is Nintendo willing to pay for good performance and where their priorities lie as far as hardcore console gamers and 3rd party cross-platform developers go. If Nintendo is dead serious about not making the same mistakes of the previous consoles such as N64's proprietary cartridges, GameCube's limited mini-DVD with 1.5GB of space, horribly slow and outdated CPU+GPU hardware of the Wii / Wii U, they will need to MAN UP and get an x86 AMD CPU+GPU or an AMD APU that integrates the CPU+GPU on 1 die. A possible ARM SOC could be used for additional compatibility with their portable NX but not for primary graphics sub-system of the home NX console. 

There is no such thing as the R9 370, it's R7 370. :) You are right on the memory bandwidth though.

R7 370 = 256-bit bus @ 5600mhz GDDR5 = 179.2GB/sec total memory bandwidth

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-radeon-r7-370-strix-review,1.html

PS4's GPU = 256-bit bus @ 5500mhz GDDR5 = 176 GB/sec total memory bandwidth.

PS4's GPU also has 3 key optimizations - 8 Asynchronoous Compute engines with up to 64 Command Ques (8 ACEs), while Xbox 1's has 2 ACEs. It has a 20GB/sec bus connecting the GPU directly to the system memory - that's faster than PCIe 3.0 x16. It also has volatile bits (tags for cache lines) for reducing the overhead of the graphics card writh respect to context switching between graphics and compute:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191007/inside_the_playstation_4_with_mark_.php?print=1

Xbox One's GPU also has major deficiencies with 1/2 the ROPs of PS4's GPU and only 48 TMUs vs. 72 in PS4. The problem is most 3rd party developers don't spend extra time to take full advantage of the GPU in PS4 because in theory it has up to 50% more performance. We'd have to wait for 1st parties like Naughty Dog to be able to extract maximum performance to see what the PS4 is truly capable of. The other issue is PS4 (and XB1) do run into CPU bottlenecks because 8-core Jaguar clocked at 1.6-1.75Ghz are still very slow compared to modern Core i3/i5/i7s or FX9590 series, etc.

But even the issue with ARM SoCs is that their GPU are absolute dogs compared to what Nintendo could technically acquire from AMD in 2016. AMD's GPU performance scales with how much $ Nintendo is willing to pay for it, while ARM SOC's maximum GPU performance scales between dog slow and snail slow. 

If we look at R7 265 and 270 cards, they are 36-45% faster than the GTX750. 

http://www.computerbase.de/2014-02/nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-ti-maxwell-test/5/#chart-groups-47830

In turn, GTX750 trashes the fastest Intel graphics currently available for sale:

The graphics capabilities of Surface Pro 3 are not even as good as the best integrated grapics of the top Intel chips and yet GTX750 smokes them, but in turn R7 265/270 smoke the 750. But the Surface Pro 3 itself has graphics performance in 3DMark that's nearly 75% faster than Apple 6S's SOC.

There is no way any 2016 ARM graphics will have the capability of coming anywhere close to the performance of modern Xbox 1/PS4 in modern games.

This sound like some fanboy fantasy for people who hate the idea of an AMD-powered Nintendo NX. 

75-90 watts, lol is way too hot for a Nintendo product.

I think Nintendo's done with competing with Sony consoles head on. People just need to let that dream die. 

An A9X class MOBILE chip from AMD likely could be tweaked to be a decent upgrade on the Wii U and Nintendo can build the console by just scaling that up 2x-3x and then share games between the two. 

They're not competing with Sony. It's not gonna happen. They could have some super-duper awesome 1 TFLOP GPU from AMD for the Wii U too ... we saw what they ended up choosing. 

And that is why Nintendo has been acting so dumb lately - rediculously low power requirements.  Just increasing their power usage from 35 - 75w could net them 3-4x the performance!!!   The PS4 uses 150w and that thing is quiet and cool running as hell!

If by "lately" you mean the past 20 years sure. 

The Wii, Wii U, GameCube, N64, SNES, and NES combined don't consume 150 watts running games simultaneously, probably not even 100 watts. 

If they want to compete with Sony honestly they should just approach Microsoft and seek out an alliance and focus more on portables beyond that. There isn't room for three consoles that do the exact same thing, never has been in this business. 

I'm pretty sure a standard Carrizo APU only uses about 35 watts, has a 4 core excavator CPU, that runs at 2.4GHz and there's a 16ROP GPU that packs about 819GFlops.
Nintendo could get AMD to design a SOC with 2X that level of hardware, for a 1.6TFlop 8 Core CPU that would basically trounce the 8 Core Jag in XB1 and PS4 running on 70 watts for the SOC alone.

Form factor wise Nintendo could probably have a system about 2/3rds of the size of PS4 (slightly fatter than Wii U, tiny bit wider), but packing a better CPU and a GPU close to PS4.
PS4 doesn't suffer any cooling or noise issues and the thing is very sleek, if Nintendo wants PS4 levels of tech, but a smaller form factor the tech is available for that.

None of this rubbish Apple A9X junk is needed.

For the console that's all good, cost wise it would probably be pretty comparable to PS4 too.
The handheld could just use about 1/10th of the hardware, scale the resolution down from 1080p to 480p, reduce a few effects here and there, but essentially keep the same core experience.

I don't see why a 10 watt battery for a handheld isn't possible with modern tech, in a Wii U Gamepad sized package, at a reasonable cost.

A A9X scaled up and given a 35 watt envelope probably can beat that 819 GFLOP performance. Just saying. It's probably generating about 400-450 GFLOPS at 8-10 watts. I wouldn't be surprised. The Apple chips are benchmarked out the wazoo by multiple repuatable sites too so I really doubt that Apple is some how lying about the performance they claim to people who are quickly to yell about GFLOPS not being all equal and that. 

But we need to stop pretending that matching the PS4 specs does Nintendo dick all. The market has never accepted three platforms that do the same exact thing, and sure as hell will not with NX coming 3-4 years late on top of that. 

Nintendo's lost the traditional core console market, I think people just need to make peace with that. They ignored it for 5-6 years by targetting casuals with the Wii, and then failed miserably with the Wii U ... they haven't been relevant to that crowd in 10+ years now and they sure as hell are not going to impress Sony/MS' strong hold by saying "hey guys, check us out, we got the similar hardware to PS4, but 3-4 years late. Super cool right?". That teens/college age "core gamers" that Sony/MS dominate are going to laugh at Nintendo if that's their sales pitch. 

A 10 watt battery/hour is possible. It would just require a large physical casing. And probably a $250 hardware cost for the portable at minimum. 

Now that Iwata (RIP) has been replaced by someone with common sense, Nintendo might be able to pick a market and commit to it. The Wii U reeks of compromise. Nintendo has to come to terms with how the videogame industry works now if they want to continue existing in it.

I think the notion of Nintendo thinking of themselves as a toy company isn't controversial (execs have been quoted as saying so), but that's not how MS or Sony, or more importantly, consumers, think of videogames and videogame consoles.The videogame industry aligned itself with the consumer electronics industry, (think: BluRay/DVD Players, TVs, smartphones, etc.) not the toy industry (think: HotWheels, action figures, etc.) a long time ago (arguably around the time of the PS1). It's why Nintendo is constantly off in their approach. (ie. Gamecube looked like a toy / "purple lunchbox", OG Xbox and PS2 looked like high end electronics, Nintendo consoles are small, MS & Sony consoles are large, MS & Sony's consoles have media playback, Nintendo's do not, etc.) You say that there's no room for a third console that does the same thing as the other two, I'm saying that there's no room for a third console that does things no-one cares about.

tl;dr: Watch the E3 2012 interview with IGN (The State of Nintendo - Reggie Fil-Amie E3 2012 Interview - 3DS & Wii U) and match what Reggie says to criticisms laid at Nintendo, post-launch. I think it's crazy that no-one at Nintendo stopped the Wii U from happening.

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKCyhJ1tyXQ

Don't expect any major changes because of the new president. He even said straight up, he just handles the business/administration side, Miyamoto/Takeda are in charge of the hardware/software and whatever NX was, it was likely largely designed under Mr. Iwata and is not going to be changed now. 

Well yeah but nothing used much power before the PS2 era.   Even desktop cards were tiney because they hadn't been scaled up yet.  I am saying in the past 15 years everyone but Nintendo figured out that to have a decent gaming rig you need to use over 100w.