I´m a layman regarding this tech talk..with that said, reading some threads on gaf about all that gives me the impression the Wii U is somewhere between 360/PS3 and next Xbox/PS4 (kinda obvious?), with a gap that won´t be as severe as the one between Wii and 360/PS3, but at the same time, a gap that maybe will be higher than PS2---GC/Xbox.

I don´t know, but chunk, don´t rule out the possibility you´ll end up having to get next Xbox or PS4 if you want to play high profile 3rd party games, like you did this gen.

I haven't. I am hoping that won't happen as I only want one console, but eitherway it won't be an issue for a few years. I didnt' get a PS3 until feb 2010.

@Bold.  This is kinda a belief based on a fallacy.  That the developers will have to do some extra bit of coding or use some special technique to use the eDRAM, or GPGPU functionality.  They don't.  Its all in the devkit, provided by Nintendo to each developer.  This stuff gets used by default.  Its why so many studios were able to get working versions of their games up so quickly.  Nintendo has a really good devkit this time around.

Update of those GPU comparison charts I put some time ago (added PS3, Redwood speculation, and vs PS3 table). Also, I added Shader column in GOperations/sec - GFLOPS for RSX seem way out of proportion against shader count and it's clock, and 360's GO/s and GFLOPS are not in direct correlation too (but that's what info is for both).

@HoloDust: Thanks for the chart.

What is that Redwood speculation? Is it the one saying that Wii U's GPU is based on the HD 57xx series?

About PS3 and the GFLOPS, if I remember correctly it was thanks to the Cell, not the RSX. That's why it was used at Folding@Home or another of those incentives.

Yeah, HD 55xx / Mobility HD 57xx - I came across it somewhere (though they mentioned 5670 clocks, but it has too high TDP in my opinion), so I thought to include it - it's size is 104mm^2, so it's seems like good candidate, considering its performance is similar to other rumoured. And honestly, I think it would make more sense than shrinking RV740 to 40nm and clocking it so low to fit into their TDP. But, still just wild guesses I suppose, there are opposing rumours claiming DirectX 10.1 and DirectX 11 equivalent GPUs inside.

As for RSX GFLOPS number I took it from wiki, and I find it very strange - actually, to me it makes no sense at all (any one with greater knowledge mind to explain?), so I was guessing it might be in combo with Cell (Cell number is also wrong, full Cell has 230.4, PS3 version can only do 179GFLOPS (1PPE+6SPE, 25.6 per element)), but that doesn't add up good also, so I'm puzzled. Discrepancy in Xenos is more understandable cause of nature of VLIW5 (5th fat one doesn't seem to be used much), so it can be argued that it's 120G Shader ops/s - 240GFLOPS, or 96/192, but I put official specs.

If PS4/ Xbox 720 come with those specs won't they be really expensive?

I wouldn't say so - for example, if we speculate that PS4 can be A10-5700 + 7770 + 8GB DDR3, that's 125$+120$+50$ on Newegg, so not even 300$ for those 3 parts; for NextBox with, let say, FX-8100 + 7850 + 8GB it would come around 400$, and way, way lower when Sony and MS are buying, so not really expensive.

I though it would of been based on what's inside the Wii U but i guess the controller for that isn't too cheap to make anyway. 

So just wondering. Did Nintendo go with a difficult architecture for the Wii U? If so, is that why devs are having such bittersweet reactions to it and will it present problems in the future or is their something to gain out of all this?