Even if this were true, I wouldn't get too excited. The PS4 and Xbox One aren't exactly impressive, even when those systems were new. It's not a criticism. I understand why they were they way they were, but if Nintendo plans to release something that's $400 or less and wants to with break even or take a very minimal loss, what they're going to be putting out in 2016 or 2017 probably won't be that impressive. The days of taking a major loss on console hardware for several years are over with.

Not the most reliable site.

As long as there isn't some forced second screen or gimmick that's necessary for the system to run or play its games.

I disagree, I don't feel Nintendo should focus on power. Nintendo can't compete with MS or Sony at a high or higher price.

Industry leading will simply mean that the manufacturer of the processor/apu is an industry leading manufacturer. And you are comparing special offer prices. The Xbox one is not officially priced at $249.99

50% more powerful IS a big leap, as for the Xbox one, you are comparing launch price WITH kinect, to sale price WITHOUT kinect.

Even beyond the issues with finding more powerful hardware you end up with something that would have twice the TDP of the ps4, and Nintendo have never, in their history, gone for hardware that uses high power consumption, they are unlikely to start here.

 They could use AMD’s latest technologies. 3D stacked High-Bandwidth Memory or HBM for short, Processor-in-Memory or PIM for short and advanced 14nm FinFET manufacturing process.

FinFET and HBM are, thus far according to AMD's own roadmaps slated only for their GPU range, the only known/rumored implamentation of HDM on an APU is the rumored 16 core Zen APU which does not use 3D stacked HBM but instead psuedo 2.5D staking memory off to the side of the CPU/GPU die, that rumor never came to fruition and has been completely ignored on every AMD presentation and roadmap since, suggesting strongly that the 16 core variation was either made up or a scrapped internal project.

But lets pretend it wasn't and they made them, given that the NX would likely be the first hardware to ship with them, just how much do you honestly believe AMD would sell their cutting edge APU's for?, because i'd argue that the price they would be asking for them would be easilly outside of the budget Nintendo would be willing to pay, especially since AMD would likely want Nintendo to foot part of the bill for the initial mass production costs and testing.

If Nintendo wanted HBM and FinFET in NX it would need to be seperate CPU/GPU, which is inherantly higher cost than an APU, and for the specs people are parading around lately, would mean even higher BOM for the retail unit.

Even still, faster memory would make little difference if the GPU and CPU were not powerful enough to take advantage of it, and the APU options for achieving that just arent here yet - maybe in another 3-5 years, a hack job solution would of course handle it but would introduce high price, high temperature and high power consumption.

So no, either the console is astronomically priced or they "could not".

I expect the nx to slightly out do the xboxone and PS4. 50% more powerful not likely. Just my guess though

Nintendo should release a fusion console at $400. This includes a home console and a handheld (which functions as a controller for the HC).

HH and HC play the same games, but you get a boost in graphics power when you play it on the TV. You can buy the HC and HH seperatly (although it should be slightly cheaper in total cost if you buy the fusion bundle). The HC bundle without the HH controller would get a traditional controller instead.

Let's say $250- $300 HC and $150- $200 HH (so you save $50 if you buy the fusion bundle). The fusion bundle doesn't come with a traditional controller to keep the price cheaper.

This is a 9th gen console though. Why would they go and make it weaker than 8th gen??