But it kinda does...

the argument isn't stupid, there are examples where the two screens render different 3d scenarios. like nintendoland's mario chase and metroid and COR multiplayer.

what's wrong with stating the truth?

Problem is that people won't believe you the first 3 to 4 years of release of a Nintendo system.

The Wii U has more then 300 shader cores & more then 1 billion polygons, but a lot of people will say that it's only 1XX shader cores and around 400 million polygons.

We can tell people that the truth is the truth all we want but very few of them will ever believe us.

The PICA200 is a series, and there is a 2006 & 2008 & 2010 & 2012 & maybe also some other models. The PICA200 Vertex Performance is 40.7 Million Polygons @ 100 MHz (600 mhz max clock frequency) with more then 500 million triangles, but the 2K6 model is only 15.3 million polygons Vertex Performence @ 200 MHz (400 MHz max clock frequency) with 160 million triangles.

The PICA200 2010 model is 1 GHz max clock frequency and won the Micro GPU of the Year Award in 2010.

Depending on whether Nintendo used a 2008 or 2010 model (PICA200), we are looking at the 3DS having somewhere from 60 to 100 shader cores.

Nintendo 3DS CPU is confirmed to be capable of clocking a CPU @ 400 MHz on pre-install firmware, and the PS Vita 4-core 1 GHz CPU is confirmed to be underclock at the point it can only clock a GPU as high as 300 MHz on pre-install firmware.

Nintendo only said they are using a ARM based CPU. And the Nintendo ARM9 CPU is 2-core 268 MHz, so that is clearly not the specs of whatever ARM based CPU the 3DS is using. Plus the PS Vita only uses 1 camera at 30 fps, but the 3DS uses 2 cameras at 30 fps per camera and does 3D auto-focus and is a multitasking camera (press L and/or R in the Home Menu) and downloads everything in the background, and still POST-PROCESS each cameras taken photo way more then the PS Vita's post-processing for taking photos.

No we shouldn't add the resolutions together, because it's not an adding situation.

Let's take wonderful 101 for example. In one scene you're in the cockpit of a plane on the gamepad, controlling a schmup kind of game on the tv. The TV is running at 720p, and the gamepad at 480p. Does this mean that I'm looking at a 1200p picture?

No. I'm either looking at a 720p image or a 480p. You can only look at one screen at a time, so how could you logically add them?

I could see the point if you're talking about the overall horsepower of the Wii U, but if we're talking about how good a game actually looks, it does not make sense to add the numbers.

The Wii U streams a 1080p image onto the GamePad's screen (pixel count is 480p, but not it's resolution).

720p games only offer a 720p image to stream seperatley.

The pixel count is 480p, but the streaming is 1080p, if it's a 1080p game.

It is not overkill, but I really seriously doubt that either of the last gen consoles could be able to run nintendoland and zombiu, if a peripheral like a wiiu gamepad came to existence.

I'm just asking if it is a valid requirement to include the gamepad visuals to the overall wii u performance, when comparing multiplatform games. And aparrently it is, depending on the use.

It seems that, hypothetically, if watch dogs runs on ps3 and wii u at 720p30fps, even if the gamepad is outputting a different 3D scene, the 480p processing at whatever framerate won't be taken into consideration in comparisons by digital foundry, when the console is pushing so much more pixels than the ps3 and actually manages to push nice visuals with improved performance.

Thats just the tv, and the GamePad has a 1080p stream onto it's 480p screen (at least for 1080p games anyways)

Yes good sir, that's exactly what I'm trying to argue here. I know we can only look at one image at a time, but the console is doing both simultaneously regardless if you're even playing at all.

What does that even mean? 480 doesn't equal 480?