@ Summaro400ex

The Wii is approximately 50% more powerful than the Gamecube. The CPU and GPU are essentially the same, but clocked 50% higher, and it has almost twice as much RAM.

Short answer: No

Long Answer: NO

QFT

Another reason you will see very little change, is because the reasons large advancements are made on consoles over time, is developers learn how to code for the platform. The Wii is architecturally the same as the GameCube, just a little faster. So, the reason it is even able to compete at the level it does, is from a development point of view, the architecture is mature.

So as time goes on, some small tweaks here and there can be made to allow games some better visuals, but don't expect the same leap you will see on the 360, and more so on the PS3 (as the PS3 is completely new to the gaming world)

Have to agree with the comments that the leap from first to last gen for the PS3/Xbox360 will be larger than the Wii due to familiarity with the architecture from the GC years. Waiting for Zelda Wii to come for a good comparision of the power leap from GC to Wii graphically.

QFE

Anyone who thinks that the Wii's graphics are going to be leaps and bounds ahead of what they are now is sipping the juice.  They will, obviously, get better with time, but what my above learned friends stated was true.  The Wii and GC share the same architechture and is why we were able to get games that looked really good on the Wii (i.e.: Zelda: Twilight Princess) so early in the lifecycle, whereas the PS3 has been lambasted for it's hard to program for cell, it will grow by leaps and bounds because once the developers get used to the architechture of that system, we will see games that truly push the PS3.  Some good ones have come out (Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, Heavenly Sword) but even those first party games aren't pushing it to the limit.  What we will see in the future for the two HD consoles is going to be above and beyond what we'll see on the Wii.  So in essence, the Wii being easy to program for is a good and bad thing, as is the PS3 being hard to program for.

No specs were ever officially released by Nintendo. The only thing they ever officially said was that it was 2 to 3 times as powerful as the gamecube back in 2005.

I am not really sure what bearing your comments have on the statement I made, but I am assuming that your comment about PS2's pixel-pushing power is a reference to the system's superior floating-point performance (much vaunted by Sony). While that may be true, it is really only a small part of the overall picture. It is also irrelevant to a debate about the graphical potential of the Wii.

This is actually not true ...

One of the few things we actually know about the Wii's hardware is the die-size of the CPU and GPU are half of what the die-size of the Gekko and Flipper were on the Gamecube, and the Wii CPU and GPU are using a 90nm process rather than the 180nm process that the Gekko and Flipper (initially) used. If the Hollywood (GPU) and Broadway (CPU) were "Essentially the same" you would expect them to have 1/4 the die size of the Flipper and Gekko.

To put it another way, we know Nintendo made improvements but we don't know what the improvements were. Reasonable speculation is that Nintendo doubled the number of pixel pipelines and TEV units on the 'Hollywood' GPU, while doubling the L2 cache and increasing the instruction set on the 'Broadway' CPU; the end result is that both the GPU and CPU would be much more powerful per cycle than the Flipper and Gekko processors were.

No, I'm referring to your comment on pixel-pushing power (pixel fillrate). PS2 had 16 (yes, SIXTEEN) pixel pipelines, while both XB/GC had 4... unless you where referring to something else by pixel-pushing power. And still GC/XB games looked better than PS2 games, so it's as relevant as your comment on that matter.

And Wii's GPU architecture seems to be quite different (aside from speed) from GC's (CPU-wise I don't know). If you ever opened a GC and removed the heatspreader of the graphics chip, you would find that everything on it (sound, embedded RAM, I/O, GPU, etc.) was on a single chip. On the Wii is different: the graphics package has been separated into two chips for some reason... and remember no spec has been confirmed by Nintendo, ATi or IBM. We just know about the RAM because you can figure it out by the serial number.

And no, I'm not saying we will see games on equal foot (or better) to the best looking 360/Triple games, but we will see things far above Xbox/GC and closer to 360/Triple.

look ou guys have to really think about it. Look at last gen in the end the gamecube had better graohics then halo in xbox first year. eg resident evil 4 had much better graphics then halo. So i think by then end of the wii there will be a game that has call of duty 4 graphics but be then you would seecrysis graphics on ps360.