Key words are 'IBM Power RISC CPU' and 'intel pentium 3'. You can research this on your own if you don't understand, but in short IBM's chips at the same MHz are much more powerful than Intel's. The numbers in ratings for computers cannot be considered an easy determinator of wether one is better than the other like say horsepower in a truck. You can only really use this a baseline when you are speaking about the exact same manufacturer. Just like the Wii's memory is actually much more powerful that the xbox's because it not simply regular ram, but 1T-SRAM which is much faster than 'normal' computer/PC ram. So, basically you have: ps2

Really? I thought non-gamers and N-boys don't want more cpu power... BTW, I think if some Wii users would like to have some more power they will just buy PS3 before Wii 2 arrive.

I have always maintaned that there will be a WiiHD by 2009/2010. Nintenod themselves said the HD market won't be big enough for five years, which is why they chose to remove HD from the Wii. However, by 2010 HD will be the only option as all major markets will have fully switched by then, wikipedia has a listing of SD terminal dates for all countries. By this time HD tv's won't be too expensive and you will definately have a very large userbase. So I think Nintendo will put out a WiiHD that will be all the Wii is now + HD graphics. They will probably have a two sku solution with a Upgrade and New options. One being like $120 and one at $200 with one controller and some packin game. That way it will still be less expensive than the 360/PS3 while giving current Wii owners the ability to upgrade and still pay less. The games shouldn't be an issue with backwards compatibility and then future Wii games would probably work fine on the current Wii as they will assuradly use ATI/IBM to ensure compatibility. The new games would just look a little worse on the current system while having 720/1080 visuals on the newer one. I for one am all for it. I spend $400 or so in the long run, same as higher priced systems now, yet, I don't have to fork out and extra $200 now. The interesting thing is how would you count it? Is the GBA and GBASP two different systems? Or would it be more like the DS to the DS Lite where they are counted the same? I think since the there will be no xbox 360-2 or ps4 at the same time, as they will go through 2015, it should be considered the same and just build off of the wii's existing userbase numbers.

It's not a comparison, he's looking at the past to get an idea of the future. What do you base your assumptions off of?

I wanted to agree with superchunk about a Wii+ in 2009/2010 - I've held that Nintendo will most likely put out a beefed up Wii quicker than 5 years. The 360 WILL be selling for sub-$200 for the core by 2010. I'd expect it do get near that wonderful $149 or even $129 pricetag (core, mind you) by 2010 or 2011 at the latest. The PS3 should see around $249 by this time. The post should really rephrase its question. The graphics don't matter, as thats just 1 party in a many-tiered experience of gameplay that'll be with each system. The issue I see is when really advanced middleware is allowing for cheap development of complex games allowing for DX10 with all the fixins, you'll start seeing low(er) budget games for the 360/PS3 that are vastly superior to the best AAA Wii titles. An increase in CPU power also will allow for better physics, larger, more interactive worlds, ect. At this point, we might see consumers become disillusioned with a piece of technology that can't do that kind of ability. Of course, the Wii will sell tons by that time, and a Wii2 would be rather easy to R&D for and inexpensive to transition to. IMO, a new Wii would HAVE to be not counted as a new console....The GBASP-GBA and DS-DSL were just exterior revisions, and a few small internal revisions - not a complete change in horsepower by any sort of magnitude.

You mean the tilt sensitive controls on the PS3, that no game will likely ever use BECAUSE you cannot build a game around it, is better than the Wiis COMPLETE motion sensing controller? Ya your right, PS3s controller is definatly going to revolutionize gaming. And the pointer is in no way useless, in fact its great, especially for any kind of aiming, you cant beat it. Do that by tilting your PS3 controller that might as well be a PS2 or 1 controller. Wow… where do I begin. "There is nothing more than innovation control system." As opposed to the PS3 being… "nothing more than a slightly advanced version of the PS2." Innovation and gameplay is everything, graphics get a very small piece of the pie. You say it "will not be 'new' for all these years." But the PS3 and xbox360, which are doing what consoles have done since the beginning (ussing basic button based controllers) will always be "new?" think about what you are saying. Nintendo has done something never really done before, its new, everything else is old. "after year or two of playing in this silly world they will want something more complex." Something more complex? We are talking about a controller sensitive to all movement? How is that less complex than a controller following the same standard of every controller for every previous console ever? WAIT! Let me guess, the PS3 controller is sensitive to tilt, so its complex and elite sauce? Don’t call us N-fanboys and overlook this guy who isnt making any sense. All he does is attack nintendo without mentioning what sony or microsoft do that is better than that. Graphics don’t make or sell games, gameplay does. POST EDITED BY MOD

Well not really... Look at Bully, had some of the best gameplay I have ever seen but didnt sell enough for them to make a profit so they had to lower the price 2 weeks after release. While other games like Killzone had great graphics the game sucked. I'll admit it and im a sony "fanboy" I guess. It sold through the roof and the next Killzone is gunna sell through the roof if its good or even if its bad. Mario Galaxy which in my opinion is the best looking game on the Wii could suck (which it wont I dont think because Mario is great IMO) and it would sell more then 6 million copy's world wide.

Well, Killzone actually never broke 1 Million units sold worldwide which means that it didn't sell all that well; it probably broke even and produced a tidy little profit, but it did not sell at amazing levels. Part of this was when it was released ... Killzone was released in November of 2004 the same month that Half Life 2, Halo 2, Metroid Prime 2, Metal Gear Solid 3, World of Warcraft and the Nintendo DS were released; not to mention that it was a month after Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was released ... The standard strategy to release pretty garbage has (generally speaking) failed and is becoming a very bad approach; gamers are sticking to sequels and games with amazingly high review scores mainly because they can be easily mislead by screenshots and videos. Now this doesn't mean that good games are ensured success (look at the sales of ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, Beyon Good and Evil and Psychonauts) but pretty trash doesn't perform all that well either

exactly. here is a great (and really long) article about that. everyone should at least read the first page. http://thewiikly.zogdog.com/article.php?article=89&ed=10

Others have done a good job above, but it's really not the number of CPU cycles but what you can do in that cycle... The example I always use is wheels, imagine a tractor wheel vs a skateboard wheel with each revolution of the wheel a different ammount of movement is achieved. I think the Wii looks pretty good, certainly can tell what's going on, SSX Blur is fast and looks great, expect games to move onward and upward as large installed base will ensure developers work hard on the hardware to get good returns on investment.