Then... do so?

Downplaying WiiU won't make PS360 better. Believe me, if it's going to be full HD then good for Nintendo, and everyone who dismissed Ninty are going to bite their tongue real hard. But that doesn't easily mean I'll jump into Ninty boat because it's 1080p. Let's see the price and then we'll talk.

I tend not to trust these kinds of claims because they are often meaningless because they're so vague ...

The Cell processor has amazing theoritical performance that rivals many high end CPUs today, but its real world performance is far lower and not dramatically better than the XBox 360 CPU. Is the Wii U's CPU 50% more powerful in terms of real world or theoritical performance than the Cell processor? If it is theoritical performance how does it stack up against the Cell in real world performance?

What about the GPU, if your GPU can handle 50% more texture and geometric detail, the system has advanced features to create a more efficient Level of Detail system and culling systems (tesselation, occlusion culling, etc.) allowing you to get similar results while rendering 66% as many polygons, the system can run more and more advanced shaders resulting in a "50% perceived increase" in geometric detail off of the same number of polygons rendered, all while outputting at 1080p with a constant frame-rate of 60fps is the GPU 50% more powerful or dramatically more powerful?

Okay, I'm going to be as blunt as possible here: I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU JUST SAID. Seriously, all tht technobabble you just threw me is, well, meaningless. You might a well have been throwing Icelandic at a Japanese mean. This is part of the reason why I don't give a shit over Nintendo not announcing specific specs for the WIi U: because I wouldn't have the faintest clue what any of it means.

My questions were mostly rhetorical ...

To use an analogy from sports, if you had an athlete who was 50% stronger, 50% faster, had 50% better endurance and 50% better co-ordination and reflexes, had 50% better training and had 50% more experience would he be 50% better or dramatically better? It can be argued either way because there is no singular measure you can use to justify that the athlete is more than 50% better, but the results of these improvements in any real world competition would seem far more dramatic than a simple 50% improvement.

You know, they say that if you post your dreams in a forum that is not relevant at all to real life, maybe they will come true... Yeah, Nintendo should release the specs of a not-finished hardware with all the details and reveal the strategy to their competitors, is a very wise move.

You know, quoting what an analyst has found talking with "his sources" isn't an evidence of nothing.

Now if you quote a gamespot interview with John Carmack where he says:

source: gamespot

"GS: Have you had any chance to look at the Wii U at all?

JC: They made a big presentation to the ZeniMax companies and I said, "Do I want to fly up there?" This was just last month or something. But I said, "No, I really need to stay here and just work on Rage right now." But you know the technology level on there brings it up to parity with the other consoles, which is nice for us. Previously, the Wii was not a target. Id Tech 5 was just not suitable for the Wii at all. We seriously talked about possibly using the iOS Rage technology that I built for that for a Wii game. It would fit perfectly from a technology standpoint, and I think would have been really pretty cool as a Wii game, but we decided that it wasn't the right time to jump into the Wii market."   

Lol consoles are machines.

True. 50x is just really wtf man. probably just a site wanting web hits.

50% =/= 50x