Yep, though Nintendo got there way first with what I would say was a full generation leap over devices like Atari and Colecovision and indeed the SG-1000.

When people say "Nintendo always used underpowered hardware!" and especially point to the NES, they really don't know what they're talking about. The SG-1000 and Famicom, released on the same exact day and the Famicom would be more like a Sega Dreamcast versus a Sony Playstation 1 (SG-1000). 

Like I'm sure the SG-1000 has fun games, but performance wise, even the first Super Mario Bros. game (which isn't near the top for the Famicom/NES in graphics) looks, plays, and feels like it's from a generation ahead of all these games:

The Sega Master System was released 2 1/2 years after the Famicom, of course it had better hardware by then, but again 2 1/2 years is a huge gap, and while the Master System had better visual capability, it wasn't a generational leap past the Famicom, the Mega Drive was but that wouldn't release until late 1988 in Japan, a full 5 1/2 years after the Famicom. 

Famicom was actually heavily influenced by ColecoVision, which was already massive jump over 2600 - which is no surprise, ColecoVision was built with "arcade games at home" design mantra, it delivered that quite successfully, and given it was released in '82, it had no problem to trounce 2600 from '77.

So yeah, SG-1000 is kinda like Dreamcast to PS1, but ColecoVision was Dreamcast one year before that, and actual start of that generation. It shows more how much behind SEGA was, releasing pretty much same hardware as ColecoVision one year later against (what is to be expected) better hardware from Nintendo.

Master System was quite better than vanilla NES...but as I said, Nintendo made Famicom/NES really cleverly, relying on addition chips in cartridges to carry it way beyond what it was capable of out of the box.

4.- Saturn
3.- Xbox One
2.- PS3
1.- N64

Regardless of what is the actual 3rd console of each company, thats how Id consider them as presented in the poll. The n64 in particular, I dunno if Id consider it "a stumble".

PS3 it pretty much evaporated all profits PS1 and PS2 made for PlayStation. Xbox One sold 58 million and was still profitable or at least did not nearly lose as much money as the PS3.

Yeah, while Sony did eventually recover from the PS3, I'd say that had less to do with the size of the stumble itself, which was enormous, and more to do with taking the right steps to course correct in the years that followed.

In the first 3 years of the PS3, it lost Sony an insane $5 BILLION, losses it never managed to recoup. It also lost them nearly 50% of their market share, and their position as market leader.

By contrast, N64 lost around 35% of SNES's market share, and Xbone about 32% of 360's share, and neither bled billions the way PS3 did.

Definitely the Saturn. It was a third degree burn on Sega's part. Though the fact that Sega kept putting out new peripherals for the Genesis that were touted as next gen didn't help. The N64 wasn't as big of a stumble for Nintendo because it still gave us some of the company's most innovative games (Super Mario 64, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Super Smash Bros. to name a few). PS3 was still a bit of a stumble for Sony because of it's unreasonable launch price and poor lineup of launch games, same fiasco happened with the Xbox One, but at least Xbox One brought back Killer Instinct.

PS3 won the war, so to speak. PS4 and PS5 have been very profitable, and some of the PS3's course corrections helped with that.

N64 and Xbox One did not bled the billions PS3 did like you said. But some of N64's mistakes were echoed by the GameCube, which did worse. And even some of Wii U's failings can be traced all the way back to N64 (the kiddy image, less friendly to third-parties, etc.)

And as I said before too, most of the shortcomings of Xbox Series X/S go back to Xbox One. 

As I say, I think that has more to do with how the companies in question responded; PS3 lost the 7th gen war, but Sony learned from its mistakes and was much more successful in the next round.

On the other hand, MS failed to properly contain and repair the damage Xbone did to their brand and let it fester, and while Nintendo did learn some key lessons from N64, their gameplan for the next generation was even worse.

Sony sacrificed their user base to make a quick end to the Blu-ray HD-DVD war. That was a resounding success. But no clue if that offset the PS3 losses.

XBox One MS tried to push all digital too early. That's happening now anyway, so I guess MS recovered from pushing it too early. But they did spend far more billions to make that recovery. And it's still remains to be seen where streaming and gamepass are going to end up.

PS2's market share was inflated by the Dreamcast pulling out early, the GameCube's reputation as a children's toy and the XBox coming in late. Even if the PS3 had been affordable from the start and launched at the same time as 360, it wouldn't have stayed that high. XBox already had momentum going into the 360 and the Wii would have been just as successful.

Sometimes I wonder if the N64 would've done better if it was disc-based instead of using cartridges, and had a regular two handgrip controller instead of that weird m-shaped one.