Why is the title of this op still not corrected as the info cited does not add any support to them,aim

It is like saying " it s raining outside" therefore AMD more and more likely to supply NX. This is some of the most dense stuff I have read in a while

I know. I was being sarcastic.

To be honest at this stage, a AMD 'vanilla' Nintendo console would just be kinda boring anyway.

Bring on Nvidia and Tegra, lets see something new and different. Embrace the hybrid concept fully and even embrace modular upgrading IMO (supplemental compute devices and all that). I wanna see a scalable platform, streaming not only to the TV, but even other mobile devices, swappable controller wings, the whole deal. If you're gonna do this Nintendo, then go all the way with it. 

The industry doesn't need more of the same, especially if its going to be something in between a PS4 and PS4 Neo just with Mario games, that would just sell to the same group of 10-15 million people still willing to buy a Nintendo home console and no one else.

If they make a traditional console, then it has to out do the PS4 Neo and XB Scorpio now, coming in 2017 it's too late to just release some "oh hey it's a little better than the PS4! Aren't you excited?!". And that they wouldn't be able to do for under $400.

A really differend thing could be AMD finally entering the ARM market full steam with competitive k12+Polaris based APUs and SoCs, and on a wider range than currently expected. NVidia and Intel can make really powerful stuff, but they often end up being too expensive for mainstream products, they were for MS, let alone Ninty, that wants to become profitable on HW asap, possibly from launch, and rarely waives this unwritten rule, and only if forced to (for example when it had to heavily cut 3DS price a few months after launch).

I know that you know it, but I can't say the same for others around here.

From an end-user perspective, it wouldn't really be any different.

I agree. Console manufacturers need to differentiate themselves, but they also need to do so without alienating 3rd party publishers/developers, then everyone can have their cake and eat it too.
Nintendo should compete on power. - Just because they opt for slower hardware, it doesn't make them different or more unique, it can actually do more harm than good by holding back progress with games/game engines and loosing a ton of games that would have otherwise made it onto the device.

There is a balancing act that is needed.

With that said, I thought the Xbox One and Playstation 4's hardware was horrible when those platforms launched, anything less will not bode well with me.

AMD doesn't really have the resources for a full ARM push at the moment, not with Zen and Vega being their main focus with their limited resources.
Plus they are also re-organizing the entire company, seperating it's Graphics and CPU departments.

Besides, ARM is a very congested market now... Especially with Chinese chip makers entering into the fray with the likes of Rockchip, Allwinner, MediaTek, HiSilicon, Spreadtrum and more.
Can't forget Qualcom, Samsung and the hundreds of other ARM Licensee's... And it makes you wonder if a company like AMD should be bothered entering the market?
Let's not forget either that ARM chips are low-profit, low-cost compared to x86.

Plus AMD needs to refine Graphics Core Next to go ultra mobile and have Tegra-levels of performance and power consumption, that's at-least 3+ years away as there are various technology's AMD would need to implement which requires massive changes to the chips architecture, nVidia successfully did this a few years ago.

AMD would be in a better position if it simply licensed out it's graphics technology to an ARM chip company and work with them, they already spun off their ultra-mobile, Radeon derived "Adreno"  tech/company to Qualcom once before.

Agree, most people don't even know what's inside PCs they buy, let's not even mention even more consumer electronics.

True, ARM isn't an ideal market for AMD, but even starting in the ways you suggest, AMD should consider it for many reasons.
The most important one is that x86 market growth is slowing (although the PC user base still always grows, as people keep their PCs working a lot longer) and it could eventually become stationary or even shrink, if in the future ARM devices will replace PCs for some PC uses, the second and third are that despite offering lower profit, low cost could be positive for AMD, and even more positive it would be that strong competition is balanced by the absence of an overwhelming market leader as Intel is in x86 market. A fourth reason could be that low profit, low cost and not even remotely being one of the market leader, let alone enjoying an overwhelmingly dominating position, makes ARM market even less ideal for Intel than for AMD.

I would have to disagree a little bit here. I want a powerful system but I can't ignore the reality that a lack of power encourages devs to think more creatively about what they offer to the system. Fundementally a weaker system would have to prove itself a success before getting support from many western 3rd parties, but in the event it does, unique titles like what we saw on the Wii, DS and even the 3DS is more benefitial to the industry than Nintendo just recieveing the same big budget games we see on PS4/Xbox One.

The problem with that is the competition. Devs don't like to be limited, and if the competition offers them the resources to develop the games they envision, they'll work with them and forget about the console that limits them.

And yet... Console hardware has often held back what developers could do with games.

One of the more notable examples would have been Goldeneye and Perfect Dark on the Nintendo 64, they were amazing games in their own right, but they would also only have 10-20fps in most instances, imagine what could have been achieved back then if the Nintendo 64 had twice the performance? Maybe the environments could have been fully destructable instead of select objects? Maybe Physics could have been more advanced (Which isn't to be understated. - See Portal and Half Life 2)

Lack of power doesn't really stop a developer from being creative, publishers and developers stop themselves from being creative. :P
Graphics and Gameplay can lend itself and augment each other really well, I need both in my games... If a game is graphically poor, chances are I won't be bothered to play it and if the gameplay sucks, chances are the game gets shelved.

Graphics also helps sell games, it's what you see in trailers, what is shown on posters... And that should help drive sales.

The Original Xbox for instance was the most advanced console of that entire generation and arguably had one of the best games of that Generation that would help define the console of the next Generation, Halo.
The extra power offered by the Xbox also allowed for console gamers to experience one of the great PC franchises for the first time, The Elder Scrolls with Morrowind.

Power and thus graphics helps make worlds believable, makes you stand around in a game and enjoy the sunset, I don't believe it's the arch nemisis of Gameplay, I do need both and I do wan't both. And guess what? Thanks to technology you can actually have both.