None of those games were built to be graphically intensive; Zombi U is technically weak even compared to other Wii U games, 3D World takes place in small simple  worlds, and Tropical Freeze is essentially just a Wii engine beefed up with HD and some fancy fur and water shaders. None of them push the hardware.

"The PS3 and 360 are capable of producing graphics similar to the PS4 and X1. The gap isn't that big" said no one ever

I have both the ps3 and wii u versions and there is some small frame rate issues in ps3 very occasionally and maybe I've noticed v-sync issue of screen tearing once or twice. I've also noticed frame rate issues on wii u (no screen tearing though). I might add this is on a projector and the ps3 graphics look a generation ahead of wii u because of the higher resolution. wii u looks incredibly blocky on the big projected screen. Looks good on the gamepad though.

This video here gives good evidence that my findings are correct. 360 has the best frame rate it dips to 26 minimum, wii u to 24 minimum and ps3 to 22 minimum but all 3 maintain 30 fps the vast majority of the time and in fact for some courses the ps3 maintains a better frame rate than wii u despite generating well over 50% higher resolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsYuAtoRtXo

wii u seems to more resistant to screen tearing issue in all games. I think the later generation gpu simply has functionality that can avoid that or simply the 32MB of high speed memory gives the wii u additional buffering capacity.  I know the early titles like Darksiders II had it on wii u but generally wii u is improved in this area. That said I've not really seen it in sonic transformed more recently. Perhaps an update improved it on ps3.

I have both the ps3 and wii u versions and there is some small frame rate issues in ps3 very occasionally and maybe I've noticed v-sync issue of screen tearing once or twice. I've also noticed frame rate issues on wii u (no screen tearing though). I might add this is on a projector and the ps3 graphics look a generation ahead of wii u because of the higher resolution. wii u looks incredibly blocky on the big projected screen. Looks good on the gamepad though.

This video here gives good evidence that my findings are correct. 360 has the best frame rate it dips to 26 minimum, wii u to 24 minimum and ps3 to 22 minimum but all 3 maintain 30 fps the vast majority of the time and in fact for some courses the ps3 maintains a better frame rate than wii u despite generating well over 50% higher resolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsYuAtoRtXo

wii u seems to more resistant to screen tearing issue in all games. I think the later generation gpu simply has functionality that can avoid that or simply the 32MB of high speed memory gives the wii u additional buffering capacity.  I know the early titles like Darksiders II had it on wii u but generally wii u is improved in this area. That said I've not really seen it in sonic transformed more recently. Perhaps an update improved it on ps3.

Agreed, but X pushes the system, at least with the game engine they currently have. I can look at the game and can say without a shadow of a douht that the other systems cannot do that.

The Wii U can though, so what's your point?

A year later and the Wii U is still competing with the visuals and performance of the 360 and PS3, thats my point.

Its only real advantage is its RAM, which will add to scale but wont affect visuals in the slightest bar textures. RAM doesnt allow it to handle complex geometry. RAM wont allow it to push 1080p. RAM wont allow it to run advanced lighting. RAM wont allow it to run advanced shaders. RAM wont allow it to render thousands of particles on screen at a smooth framerate. Thats all bound to the GPU.  As mentioned above its GPUs raw throughput is in the same league as the playstation 3 and 360, even if you pick the 352 gflops.

DigitalFoundry accurately predicted that the Wii Us GPU is equivalent to a 4650HD in PC terms. This explains NIntendos own games being 720p60 rather than 900p60 or 1080p60. This explains 3rd party games sticking to 720p30. The 4770 and 4850 are out of the question otherwise every 7th gen port would be 60fps easily. Nintendo could hit 900p60 easily with that power. The WiiU simply does not have it.

Nintendoland, 3D World, NSBU and DKTF are all 720p60. Pikmin 3 is 720p30. WWHD is 1080p30 a game with high res textures (hello RAM) and bloom. PS2 HD remakes by inhouse studios on the PS3 managed to be 1080p, 60FPS with bloom, alpha, AA, VSYNC and Bokeh DOF (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-how-konami-remade-zoe-hd-remaster). Im detecting a pattern here. What more proof do you need?

Theres a huge difference between a 4650(WiiU) and the 7790(X1) and 7870(PS4). Theres just no way of spinning it. The systems graphics and performance will be in a completely different leauge. DirectX11 and GPGPU extentions wont magically increase its performance by a factor of two or anything, the 360 GPU supported tesselation for example but it was still bound by its base power. 

CPU intensive games or scenes with lots of NPCs or action on the screen cause its framerate to plummet in most games, its CPU is on par if not slightly worse than the 7th gen. At least 3 different high profile developers have said this on the record.

Ive watched the 600MB 60fps Bayonetta 2 video. It has great quality, and shows the games excellent framerate and scale. However, it has standard 7th gen textures and geometry. No antialiasing to speak of and based on the jaggies I think another so called 1080p Wii U game will end up being 720p. The flashback from Bayo 1 in the begining of the trailer doesnt look out of place in the slightest, like seriously.

How people can claim that a machine so close to the 7th gen can produce visuals similar to the X1 and PS4 is beyond me. If you truly believe that then the same holds true for the PS3 and 360, since they are in the same league afterall. It cant be true for the U and not be true for the 7th gen HD twins. Of course no one says that about the 7th gen HD twins but people continue to insist with the Wii U, it doesnt make sense.

A year later and the Wii U is still competing with the visuals and performance of the 360 and PS3, thats my point.

Its only real advantage is its RAM, which will add to scale but wont affect visuals in the slightest bar textures. RAM doesnt allow it to handle complex geometry. RAM wont allow it to push 1080p. RAM wont allow it to run advanced lighting. RAM wont allow it to run advanced shaders. RAM wont allow it to render thousands of particles on screen at a smooth framerate. Thats all bound to the GPU.  As mentioned above its GPUs raw throughput is in the same league as the playstation 3 and 360, even if you pick the 352 gflops.

DigitalFoundry accurately predicted that the Wii Us GPU is equivalent to a 4650HD in PC terms. This explains NIntendos own games being 720p60 rather than 900p60 or 1080p60. This explains 3rd party games sticking to 720p30. The 4770 and 4850 are out of the question otherwise every 7th gen port would be 60fps easily. Nintendo could hit 900p60 easily with that power. The WiiU simply does not have it.

Nintendoland, 3D World, NSBU and DKTF are all 720p60. Pikmin 3 is 720p30. WWHD is 1080p30 a game with high res textures (hello RAM) and bloom. PS2 HD remakes by inhouse studios on the PS3 managed to be 1080p, 60FPS with bloom, alpha, AA, VSYNC and Bokeh DOF (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-how-konami-remade-zoe-hd-remaster). Im detecting a pattern here. What more proof do you need?

Theres a huge difference between a 4650(WiiU) and the 7790(X1) and 7870(PS4). Theres just no way of spinning it. The systems graphics and performance will be in a completely different leauge. DirectX11 and GPGPU extentions wont magically increase its performance by a factor of two or anything, the 360 GPU supported tesselation for example but it was still bound by its base power. 

CPU intensive games or scenes with lots of NPCs or action on the screen cause its framerate to plummet in most games, its CPU is on par if not slightly worse than the 7th gen. At least 3 different high profile developers have said this on the record.

Ive watched the 600MB 60fps Bayonetta 2 video. It has great quality, and shows the games excellent framerate and scale. However, it has standard 7th gen textures and geometry. No antialiasing to speak of and based on the jaggies I think another so called 1080p Wii U game will end up being 720p. The flashback from Bayo 1 in the begining of the trailer doesnt look out of place in the slightest, like seriously.

How people can claim that a machine so close to the 7th gen can produce visuals similar to the X1 and PS4 is beyond me. If you truly believe that then the same holds true for the PS3 and 360, since they are in the same league afterall. It cant be true for the U and not be true for the 7th gen HD twins. Of course no one says that about the 7th gen HD twins but people continue to insist with the Wii U, it doesnt make sense.

Ive watched the 600MB 60fps Bayonetta 2 video. It has great quality, and shows the games excellent framerate and scale. However, it has standard 7th gen textures and geometry.