Based in reveled specs... slow CPU, slow RAM, etc... complex 1080p games is almost impossible.

That says nothing about the consoles power. It says the developers didn't make uses of its power. 

So one developer says the CPU is slow and that voids all other developers praise of the system. And as for the memory speed issue, I beleive the smaller the number the better. Kind of like a 4.3 in the 40 yard dash is better than a 5.3. 

At least four developer plus DF said the CPU is slower then current gen consoles.

Show me any developer praising the Wii U CPU.

And what are you talking about the memory speed? 4.3? 5.3?

Many have prased the system as a whole. A console is more than just the CPU. If the U is able to produce the same graphics as the Zelda and Japanesse Garden demo's from 2011 E3, it will more than hold its own. 

As for the memory speed, what was saying is that a 4.3 is better than a 5.3 in a 40 yard dash. 4.3 means a person runs 40 yards in 4.3 seconds. 5.3 means it was done in 5.3 second which is slower than 4.3. The goal is to have a smaller time. That's what my understanding of the speed claim that was made. Feel free to correct my understanding if it is wrong.

Um, ignoring the fact the the first two Mass Effects are not available on any Nintendo platform, and the WiiU version is somehow better than the Ps3?? Have fun playing the ending of the game I guess.

The whole system is better than PS360... that's a fact but disappointment is deu that fact it it just better than PS360... not next gen or way better than PS360... it's like "Welcome Wii to this generation"... Wii U hardware delivery what the others consoles develered six years ago.

The memory speed of Wii U is almost half the speed of the memory in PS360... 22.4GB/s vs 12.8GB/s.

Ok! So those E3 demo's were a lie then? They were more than just better than what saw from the PS360.

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: tech demos are intended to showcase hardware strength without the constraints of having to compute stuff like AI, gameplay input and the myriad of factors that need to be updated real time into the RAM like position of assets etc.

It's like dolus bonus; the so-called good deceit on commercial transactions. Meaning the use of cunning and sagacity to make a product look and feel better than it is.

Both the PS3 and the X360 also had their fair share of wow-ing tech demos; and that with 7-year old graphical technology... every new GPU series have those too.

Mass Effect 3 wasn't well optimised for the PS3 hence the crappy frame rate. It's definitely a GPU intensive and bandwidth heavy game both of which are the PS3's weak points. If you look at the alpha effects they are the same full resolution as on the 360, difference being the 360 has a 256GB/s embedded ram + 21.6GB/s to system RAM while the PS3 only has 22.4GB/s video memory bandwidth. A neat trick to keep the frame rate up on PS3 games with heavy use of alpha is simply to use quarter resolution. Unless someone points it out, you won't notice the difference and it's something Bioware could've done but I guess graphical bling was more important to them than frame rate which imo is the wrong choice at least during game play. All PS3 exclusives either ditch alpha altogether or downgrade to quarter res including Killzone 2 & 3, Resistance trilogy and the two Infamous games. In the Uncharted trilogy ND simply replaced alpha explosions with explosions and fire effects that are not transparent but do feature complex speed and density physics which I imagine is afforded by power of the Cell CPU.

The Wii U has more edram than the 360 and a stronger GPU but slower system RAM (though twice as much) and possibly a weaker CPU (it has to be backwards compatible with the Wii afterall) so taking these factors into account I'm not surprised at the 360>Wii U>PS3 result.