Wrong. Anything with the label "Nintendo" is slow.

actually most people would be right in that case http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/47?vs=677&i=505.506

The thing is, publishers are bound by investors. If there is no doubt that failing to support the Wii U will harm their company, they are legally bound to support the Wii U.

The reason why they were able to get away with lacklustre support on the Wii was that they could use the "but 3rd party games don't sell on Wii, at least not when they're core games" myth. But if a few early games completely blow that argument out of the water, it will be much harder for them to justify not supporting the Wii U. And if the game that does well is ZombiU, then they also can't use the "spinoffs are what we need" attitude (which Capcom used on the Wii).

Also, I expect some games from those publishers. Treyarch supported the Wii as much as they could manage to, and Activision wouldn't stop them from doing so. A number of EA studios do support Nintendo platforms - DICE have confirmed a Battlefield for the Wii U, for instance (it's not certain whether it's an exclusive or just inclusion in Battlefield 4 - either way, though, it's good news). Take Two (Rockstar is part of Take Two) and Konami are less certain, but both have had history of putting some exclusives on Nintendo platforms, so I wouldn't count them out.

Also, I would talk Square Enix or Capcom up too much. That they're putting some big titles on the Wii U is nice, but remember that both games are actually ports, strictly speaking - Monster Hunter 3 was originally on the Wii, and Dragon Quest X was recently released on the Wii, with the Wii U version coming later. And both are the only games that those two companies have announced for the Wii U. Ubisoft is noteworthy because they've got multiple real titles on the Wii U at launch - note that they had about as many games at launch on the Wii, but those games were buggy and rushed, whereas the Wii U launch titles appear to be really solid titles, with multiple exclusives and improved (rather than gimmicky) versions of multiplatform titles. Also noteworthy, but less so, is Warner Bros Interactive.

I don't have to tell you why that's wrong, but ok.

but but, this is a games forum. It is clear the i3 is better cause skyrim was optimized to use CPU clock speed and not better architecture design.

what kind of relevance have CPU only benchmarks for a game system? gaming performance probably is more important, no? (not to mention, that the i7 in the bench is 2.66GHz, so it's a lot faster than the 1.5GHz i7 Nem originally proclaimed to be faster than a 3GHz i3)

Precisely. And there's one thing everyone agrees on - the Wii U has a more powerful GPU than either the 360 or the PS3. Indeed, it's practically confirmed to be DX11-capable.

I just wanted to counter his post/ spreading of misinformation. Anyone with knowledge should know that clock frequency is not the only measure of a CPU's performance.

Yes, the lately often quoted architecture does play the biggest role in CPU performance, yet Nem's example was flawed from the beginning as i3 and i7 are _same gen tech_. The i7 has better per clock performance mainly due to larger caches and so on, but the underlying architecture is largely the same.

I expect the WiiU's main chip to have a better per clock performance than the Xenos for example, but I don't know how much that can be if it operates with less transistors as some reports point to. (same process -> same transistor size -> but smaller die size = lower transistor count?) Normally CPU performance does scale pretty linear with transistor count, but a considerably better (or better suited for it's functions) architecture can upset that aswell.

I think this comparison makes the point quite well. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/93?vs=70

3.5ghz dual core,4 thread 'netburst' pentium (like xenon with one core chopped off) roughly equivalent to 1.6ghz dual core, dual thread based on 'core'(like the wiiU cpu with one less core).

Die sizes are 162mm^2 compared to 77mm^2 on the same process(65nm).

The clocks arent a perfect match but it shows whats possible at least.