Many problems with it though. I don't actually believe these specs are legit, but this is what came to my attention in your article:

Firstly a 16 core POWERPC design isn't very realistic when you say it is. Even now they only go up to 8 cores, and those are thousands of dollar server parts. If these things launch in 18 months, a brand new 16 core design would still be very expensive. POWERPC8 with native 16 core designs for servers isn't looking likely anytime before the end of 2013.

Secondly, a quad core with a Tahiti on one die would be a custom part, because they don't exist right now and won't exist for years. The fastest APU in the fusion range isn't remotely close to Tahiti. How big is 6550D? About 700m transistors. Tahiti is over 4 billion. We are talking about a fusion part with 5 billion transistors on one die with a quad core CPU....

Besides this the original Xbox was basically a PC in a box having a coppermine intel CPU and Geforce class GPU, so this isn't something new or amazing to use PC derived parts. You could hack an Xbox to run windows!

Bulldozer is not less powerful than CELL in PS3, not for games. Frankly when PS3 and 360 launched, devs and people pointed out that desktop dual cores of the time (2006) were faster and better for game code. CELL just wasn't designed for double precision either.

One glance at a core 2 duo and 8800GTX machine of 2006 will show how this is true, it pummels these consoles, and not just because of the GPU. Stuff that was done on CPU at the time like physics and particles etc were better and easier to run on the x86 chips. Pretty much ANY desktop x86 quad core that exists would have no trouble outperforming CELL for games.

The GPU specs being wrong were noted by me 36 hours ago on N4G before this article was published. Amazingly you write almost precisely what i said....

Memory bandwidth-first you talk about a quad core or 2GB machine not being enough, but now a 512 bit bus is too expensive?

For sometime now there had been talk of a fusion part for consoles but that was mounted on an interposer with the chips sharing a very wide 512bit bus for a bunch of stacked unified memory. the memory wouldn;t be extremely fast to save money, but with such a wide bus it would be ok. Just a rumour, but such a thing is not impossible again. Was you not aware of this?

Sure enough they would have to share memory bandwidth, but 360 does that, and 360 does it well. With a 512bit bus and decent memory speed, you would get plenty of bandwidth to make that work. At least 200GB/s i would say.

Ok there are a lot of reasons why these rumors are questionable, and why they may be true. Where to start.

THE CPU

"The CPU in question is said to be an AMD Fusion (probably quad-core) based on the “Steamroller” cores set to launch in 2013. The problem is, 4 cores would not only be too less, it would be insanely weak against the rumoured (and probably more authentic) 16 Core PowerPC CPU that XBox 720/Durango will hold."

A 16 Core CPU is extremely rare even by todays standards. Only 2 of which I know (1 by AMD, and 1 by Intel which has not been applied). It's extremely unlikely that the Nextbox will use a 16 core CPU because it's going to cost at least $300 for the CPU alone. Speaking further on the Nextbox rumors, why on earth would MS pay for a superpowerful CPU only to pair it with an entry level GPU. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Going deeper into the rumor, even games nowadays rarely use a Quad Core processor to its full capabilities, so what's the purpose of having an extra 12 cores just sitting there. Kinect isn't using 12 cores to run.

The rumored APU in the PS3 is suppose to be the Trinity based A10 APU, or the A12 rumored for Early 2013.

A10
3.8GHz, Quad Core, Each core capable of two threads (8 threads beats 360's 6 threads), with a built in integrated Radeon 7660.

This APU is capable of running most current gen games at an equal resolution and frames per second as the PS3 and Xbox 360, and that's not including the GPU.

THE GPU

I agree with you about something being fishy about the GPU. The PS4 was rumored to be using a Radeon 7950 which would be enough to get a true next gen experience from the PS4. It's a $350 GPU, and by holiday 2013, it should be around $280 which means it's possible it might be the heart of the PS4 about 50-50 ($500 PS4).

Honestly there's no way to pinpoint the GPU exactly, but it's 1 of 5 possible GPU's if they're actually going to AMD.

Radeon 7750
Radeon 7770
Radeon 7850
Radeon 7870
Radeon 7950

The most reasonable choices would be, the 7770 (expect a jump = to the Wii -> Wii U), 7850 (expect the difference of console and PC to be like Battlefield PS3 vs Battlefield PC), or 7950 (future proof) representing a good mix of options to choose from, and when in crossfire with the APU, should provide some solid performance from the next console.

THE MEMORY

I'm all with you here. The people saying 2GB is plenty are full of it. 2GB is good for gaming only, but these consoles aren't just for gaming anymore. They are practically TV computers, and they need at least 4GB of RAM (ideally 8GB) to function they way MS and Sony want.

BLU RAY AND HDMI 1.4

They're sticking around. THe majority of current gen games fit on 1 DVD, so Blu Ray's 50GB should still be plenty for most PS4 games, and if not there are 100GB Blu Ray and larger. 1080p will be suitable for gaming and the PS4. There's no real need for 2k and 4k resolutions, especially at the cost of FPS. Also I'm sure the PS4 will support HDMI 1.5 with a future firmware update as they did with 1.4

HDD AND FLASH MEMORY

I doubt the flash memory will be there was well, but I expect a minimal HDD of 500GB simply because currently the 320GB HDD isn't cutting it already. I'm sure the console will support larger HDD such as 1TB+ maybe even SSD (doubt it). But 500GB is good enough for selling the console.

Can't compare consoles to PCs. The architecture is radically different, and RAM usage is therefore incomparable. RAM size is determined as an optimum - too high will decrease performance, too low will decrease performance.

Clock speeds have an optimum, and that's what's used in a console. If this rumour were true, then engineers have determined 3.2Ghz is the optimal speed for the processor.

Im not quite sure what youre saying here sjaakiejj. Most processor ive seen benefit greatly from overclocking. It has the negative effect using more power and getting more heated so naturally you will have to find a balance between heat poweruse and performance but higher clock speed will (except for a few special cases that will never occur in a console since it will be designed to best support whatever clockspeed they choose) always lead to higher performance.

And as far as RAM goes im not sure what youre saying is right there either. It might be but its a very small impact. Compare 1GB version of a graphics card with a 2GB version of the same card. They will perform almost exactly identical, but at some games (like metro) you could get substantially better performance on the 2gb card because the 1gb just doesnt have enough RAM for higher resolution + AA in that special game. Surely for a console maker it would be better to have enough RAM to utilize the gpu to its fullest and risk having a little bit left over in a few games then having the developers not be able to put certain effects and have certain resolutions or texture sizes or drawdistances because it doesnt have enough RAM to do it. That would be a total waste since the GPU would have the power to perform it but not be able to utilize it.

And you can compare PC and consoles. The architecture are not radically different anymore and will be even less so next generation. PCs have a much higher OS overhead but as far as videoram is concerned its very comparable. When you go up to higher resolutions and add AA effects VRAM use gets alot higher and thats probably the main reason why PC games use more RAM. If we want 1080p games next generation you'd want 1GB of RAM just to run current generation titles on it, then your gonna want to see a quantum graphics leap ontop of the extra resolution and you will soon realise that 2gb of RAM will be a severly limiting factor for a console that will last from late 2013/early 2014 to 2020 and beyond.

SuperM:

Processor: It has to do with the size of the processor pipeline. Throughput in this pipeline must be optimal, which isn't the case when clockspeeds are too high (due to memory fetches taking a long time the pipeline is empty for some time) and when clockspeeds are too low. The reason overclocking works is because manufacturers clock their processors on speeds below the optimal. This isn't the case for consoles, where engineers clock the console at it's optimal speed.

RAM: Circuit Capacitance, look it up. It states that the bigger something is, the slower it becomes. If both 1GB and 2GB memory are fully utilised, 2GB will be slower. If they're not, the 2GB memory will only use 1GB of chips and leave the rest switched off, hence why you don't see a performance difference.

"And you can compare PC and consoles". No you can't. Consoles are pieces of hardware purpose built for optimal gaming performance. They are unable to perform many of the tasks that a desktop performs quickly, in trade for much better gaming performance.

Also, resolution has nothing to do with RAM size. In fact, it doesn't use any RAM. I don't know where you got the idea that it did. Resolution only comes into play in the GPU double buffer, which needs to be large enough to store a given number of pixels. Before that, the 3D models and textures are stored in VRAM. They are rasterised into the double buffer and the Z-Buffer.

I suggest you do a bit of reading before replying next time ;)