Sounds like a small tablet sized handheld that will replace both Wii U and 3DS by topping the specs of both and allowing you to stream games to your tv while using the handheld as a controller. A handheld with close to XB1 level specs, that's darn impressive. But I have to wonder, what would the battery life on something like that be? The most powerful tablets out right now don't come anywhere near XB1 specs afaik, they're like half of XB1 specs. It is rumored to be using AMD's newest generation tech (CPU and GPU) which AMD claims are quite a bit more powerful and efficient, but I still have to wonder about battery life.

I like the sound of the haptic analog sticks, as long as you can disable the function if you find it annoying for some games. I could see it being cool in racing games, it could potentially allow you to "feel the road", much like you can with high end racing wheels. 

Because it is only your opinion.
Take a look at any Wii U game, you will find that texturing, geometry, lighting, shading and general assets is a generational step back from the next gen twins.

Resolution and Framerate is not the sole determiner of image quality that you imply, resolution is the amount of pixels being rendered and displayed on screen, usually it impacts the clarity of an image and reduces the amount of jaggies. (Some form's of Anti-Aliasing will just render the game at a higher resolution then downscale it.)
Framerate is the amount of images displayed per second.
Neither two affects the lighting, shadowing, geometry, texturing, filtering etc' going on in a game.
You can have the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 render games at full 1080P, 60fps. It will look worst than an Xbox One at 480P 30fps.

Still waiting for you to show me a game which is able to provide Xbox One Levels of image quality, you kinda' need that to back your argument up, otherwise your absurd claims are simply without basis.

We also need to keep in mind that Nintendo historically (Since the gamecube days) hasn't been the leader in hardware or graphics either, The Gamecube lost to the Xbox, the Wii lost to the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, the Wii U looses to the Xbox One and Playstation 4, the DS Lost to the PSP, 3DS looses to the Vita  and the NX is unlikely to change any of that, it's Nintendo's business strategy. And it has kept them in business, so we can expect more of the same going forward. (Even if I hope for them to be competitive with hardware, there is nothing that says that they will.)

Converesly... Rumors have suggested that the NX is likely to be less powerfull than the Xbox One, if the Wii U can display graphics at the Xbox One Level (Your words, not mine) then what would be the point in releasing the NX?

I would like for you to show some proof though of an in-game screenshot that shows Xbox One levels of graphics being rendered on the Wii U, otherwise I will assume you are not being serious.

Zen won't be expensive/expansive.

You don't put a full-featured Desktop CPU into a console, you just don't, console's do not have the cooling capacity nor power delivery, heck they can't even afford to do it.
A low-end Quad-Core Zen would be more than adequate, maybe even a high-clocked Dual-Core. (A Dual-Core Intel chip can be faster than all 8-cores in the Xbox One/Playstation 4.)
Zen will fill AMD's entire product stack from cheap tablets right up to 16-core servers, it will also be the Architecture which will replace Carizzo and the other APU's.


HBM? Why? HBM is useless in a console, you are only gaming at a last-century 1080P. Nor would a console employ such an expensive memory system, you aren't paying $1000 for your hardware.
Let's say the NX had 150Gb/s of GDDR5X (Or plain ole' GDDR5) bandwidth... It will make better use of that than the PS4 which has 176Gb/s of bandwidth.
Why? Compression. Or more specifically Colour compression. - It's amazing how newer GPU's tend to have newer technologies to drive up efficiency, so the NX doesn't need more raw bandwidth (And thus more expensive memory chips) to beat the PS4.

Polaris will likely be a good deal faster than only 2x than the PS4, in the high-end at-least.
Fury X is already 3-4x faster... At 1080P. - But it doesn't really show it's true muscle untill you start gaming at 1440P or 4k, then it is in a league of it's own.
Polaris at the mid range could actually meet where R9 290/390 is right now in all regards except bandwidth, with superior energy characteristics, 14nm is showing some great promises that AMD and nVidia have been vocal about.

I wonder how you managed to miss it when my post was so small. The graphical difference between x1/ps4 games and wii u isn't big and when we factor that wii u has a higher framerate as standard, it evens out the resolution (if nintendo opted to make wii u games run at 30 fps, they could up the resolution to 900p or keep 720p and increase the graphics to x1 levels).

The discussion isn't about the ps3 so that's obviously not the point. Wii U handles very graphically demanding games in 720p 60ps, in cases like smash bros, the graphics are lower but resolution higher and xenoblade has less frames in exchange for more stuff on screen.

That and price. I'm not a tech guy but it's hard to imagine it selling for less than 400$. That'll hurt it's ability to be sold as a handheld, assuming it even qualifys as one. With dual screens and analog sticks, I don't see how it's gonna fit in my pocket.

Because it is only your opinion.
Take a look at any Wii U game, you will find that texturing, geometry, lighting, shading and general assets is a generational step back from the next gen twins.

Resolution and Framerate is not the sole determiner of image quality that you imply, resolution is the amount of pixels being rendered and displayed on screen, usually it impacts the clarity of an image and reduces the amount of jaggies. (Some form's of Anti-Aliasing will just render the game at a higher resolution then downscale it.)
Framerate is the amount of images displayed per second.
Neither two affects the lighting, shadowing, geometry, texturing, filtering etc' going on in a game.
You can have the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 render games at full 1080P, 60fps. It will look worst than an Xbox One at 480P 30fps.

Still waiting for you to show me a game which is able to provide Xbox One Levels of image quality, you kinda' need that to back your argument up, otherwise your absurd claims are simply without basis.

We also need to keep in mind that Nintendo historically (Since the gamecube days) hasn't been the leader in hardware or graphics either, The Gamecube lost to the Xbox, the Wii lost to the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, the Wii U looses to the Xbox One and Playstation 4, the DS Lost to the PSP, 3DS looses to the Vita  and the NX is unlikely to change any of that, it's Nintendo's business strategy. And it has kept them in business, so we can expect more of the same going forward. (Even if I hope for them to be competitive with hardware, there is nothing that says that they will.)

Converesly... Rumors have suggested that the NX is likely to be less powerfull than the Xbox One, if the Wii U can display graphics at the Xbox One Level (Your words, not mine) then what would be the point in releasing the NX?

I would like for you to show some proof though of an in-game screenshot that shows Xbox One levels of graphics being rendered on the Wii U, otherwise I will assume you are not being serious.

Lying in my face doesn't help. Resolution and framerate are big factors, graphics are the other and there's no big difference between wii u's graphics and it's two competitors. They're certainly better but nothing huge.

Nearly every major Wii U exclusives prove my point.

Absolutely irrelevant that those hardwares weren't the strongest in their generations.

I will pretend I didn't read your NX vs x1 sentence. To make it short, there's no way wii u's successor is only less/ equally as/ a little more/ moderately more powerful than x1.