Actually I was saying it before I even had a thread asking people to put their money where their mouths were and bet, the first thread you linked is you arguing with someone about the performance level of the chip in question not about the claims on it using Tegra and the second was you arguing with someone who was trolling the thread to bash the platform most people there aren't even attacking you like you claim apart from the person who was trolling.

Back then the were two speculated concepts going around, one was the hybrid the other was the unified software platform like IOS with a console and portable sharing one library and games scaling for the platform. People were already expecting a unified approach.

The majority of people here expected Wii U to not last 5 years from what I recall you kept arguing with the same few people over it so don't claim the whole board because that's flat out untrue.

Actually at that time hybrid, as in a singular device was not that common, most people were speculating a seperate home console and portable that played the same games. But I always looked at the concept of that Turbo Express mobile console and it always stood out as something very "Nintendo-ey". 

I'm just saying Nintendo fans are quite often wrong. I've seen it many, many times. 

You know when the Wii was just the "Revolution" and Perrin Kaplan, an actual Nintendo employee came out and said casually that the system would only be about 2-3x a GameCube in power, the backlash towards her comments was immense. A whole lot of "what a dumb bitch, she obviously doesn't know anything about hardware, Nintendo would never do that, Nintendo's never done that before".

The fanbase can be in serious denial about things quite often. Mobile games wasn't going to impact handheld sales one bit. Nintendo wasn't going to drop the 3DS price. Nintendo would never make a 3DS model without 3D. Nintendo will never add a second analog to the 3DS.  Nintendo will never make mobile games. Well ok, they'll make mobile ad apps, but not actual games. Well ok, they'll make games, but not like an actual Mario game on mobile. Nintendo won't abandon the DS/3DS clamshell design. No way is Zelda: BotW moved to NX, the list goes on and on. Under the logic "they've done that before". 

There's a whole lot of Ls to hold, Nintendo quite frequently does this their own fanbase didn't see coming at all or was vehemently in denial about beforehand. Often times the worst way to gauge what Nintendo is going to actually do is to ask their fanbase. There's a fairly established pattern by this point. 

Again no this is just you making sweeping statements based on arguments with a group of a few people, for a start a second analogue add on has been available for the 3DS since near enough launch when MH3U landed so a revision with it was not much of a surprise, 3D was dropped as a selling point not long after launch because of its lack of draw at which point Nintendo began marketing the software more instead so a non 3D version is not a surprise either. BOTW was also expected by the majority so I'll say it again you having an argument with a few people here doesn't equal the majority and never has, you're just making an untrue sweeping statement here.

It's not really sweeping, I would bet a large sum of money if you went backwards in time Wyrdness two years ago and basically typed out everything Nintendo has done (will ditch distinct console/portable hardware lines for one hybrid device, will ditch the Wii U after year 4, no real Animal Crossing for Wii U, no price cuts for the Wii U, Nintendo will make mobile games, yes even a Mario game, Zelda is not going to come out only the Wii U, it's going to get Twilight Princessed for the launch of the next Nintendo system) ... you would get yelled down by more than just 2 or 3 Nintendo fans, lol. 

In fact you'd probably have some people very, very angry with you. 

No one would believe you. And the main reason for that would be the "well they've never done that in the past" logic. Nintendo does things their own fanbase says they'd never do ... all the time. That's just how it goes. 

Even Sony/MS fans aren't immune, tell them a PS4 Pro was coming 18 months ago and there'd be a lot of of "you're a fucking idiot, Sony would never do that". That's what keeps the industry interesting is unexpected things happen all the time, I've been following this business for almost 30 years. Soap operas ain't got nothing on the twists and turns this business sees. 

What would be the clock speeds? This would allow us to make a lot more sense of this. I saw it asked earlier but it didn't get answered. OP implies some insane clock speeds.

The PX2 has two Tegra X2s and a GPU. The Tegra X2 is capable of outputting 750GFLOPS (0.75TF) at max reference clock speed of 1465MHz with 15W TDP. Two Tegra X2s at that frequency would be 1.5TF. If the PX2 uses these clocks then this makes up part of it's overall.

Now the Tegra X3 is set to have 512 CUDA cores. To have a PS4s similar GFLOP count then it would need to clock at 1800MHz. I'm pretty sure we'd be close to the thermal headroom of a portable case.

Xavier supposedly matches the processing power of the Drive PX2 (80 watts) but can do it at 20 watts. According to Nvidia anyway. That Volta architecture must be pretty amazing. 

I don't think Nintendo would even need a full Xavier, a Xavier with half the CUDA cores for example would likely still give you PS4 tier performance in a portable device at about 10 watts, which is less than what the current Switch consumes in docked mode (15 watts). 

The vision of game developers will always outstrip what even the most powerful hardware can accomplish.

If there's one thing Nintendo have proven over the past decade is that they can make great games in spite of low power hardware.

Nintendo's also proven pretty much every gen that given more hardware power, they produce better games because of it. 

Zelda is a massively better franchise because of higher end processing power that goes well beyond what a 3DS or Wii could do. It's not just prettier pictures either, the feeling of BotW is not possible with lesser hardware because you lose the feeling that the world is alive to that degree. Just because they can make a fun game on lesser hardware doesn't mean that it's not limiting what they can do. 

Splatoon designers said straight up they wouldn't able to make Splatoon work on the 3DS because the paint physics they want to do simply aren't possible on a processor that weak. Who knows if the next Ninendo idea like that only works on certain hardware. 

Why should we want a scenario in which Nintendo designers have a limited vision? I want the next Zelda to blow the shit out of Breath of the Wild and not kinda settle for just running around at abou the same level because that's about the top of what the hardware can accomplish. I don't really understand why this POV is even cheer-leaded, it doesn't give you better games. 

conceptual bull shots have been used by everbody and it proves nothing about the hardware.

EAD is pretty good about optimizing their games. If the game is not running well, it's not because of lazy programming.