The main thing preventing that is cost. Sure, they could launch a console with 12x the power, but the cost for that would be too big to make it a viable option. And 8 times more powerful but using only 120W. At what speeds would the CPU and GPU need to operate to get the consumption that low? Wouldn't it be counterproductive?

Side note: Do you think that DDR4 will be used? If, as you say, they make it available in 2013 then it will be much more expensive than DDR3. Maybe even more expensive than GDDR5. And while the bandwidth sees a very high increment, so is the latency that almost doubles going from CAS7 to CAS13.

Speed of the CPU/GPU? I would say 1600 and 750Mhz respectively. They can be very efficient if they aren't pushing the envelope. DDR4 is the most cost efficient memory given the fact that it will be the standard used by billions of computers around the world, economies of scale and all that.

Sorry, the speed question was rhetorical. What I ment is why going with a high end part only to downclock it when you can grab a lower model without having to downclock it that gives you the same performance that the capped one.

As for DDR4, as you said, it will be. Until it becomes mainstream and is produced in mass quantities (2 years minimum) its price will be much higher than the other options.

Oh, I do believe they'll all look really good. The point is that PS4 and Xbox3 won't look THAT much better than WiiU ;)

Your theory completely disregards the advancement of technology to a point where hardware, which is a hell of a lot more advanced now than it was in 2006, is cheaper to produce than the inferior tech from back then, and if theyre going with a SIP based design then the unit costs and overall production costs will be far less.

Long story short, and i speak with a certain level of personal knowledge of these systems, They're capable of much more than you're antitipating, which a much wider scope for future progression in eeking more out of each system.

Let me give this a little scope here,

When working on the Gamecube we were mostly using 128x128 or similar sized textures for objects, 256x256 for large repeating ground and structural textures and 512x512 for cinematic cuts or extremely large things such as skymaps, nothing higher, similar was true for PS2 titles.

When working on PS3 and Xbox 360 the norm was 512x512 up to 2048x2048, the latter again used for extremely large surfaces, with the WiiU development units in our partner development houses and associates, the maximum recommended size is also 2048x2048,  with most opting to use 512x512 to 1024x1024 or deriatives of this.

For the other units we are currently working with - and i promise to come back to this thread in 4 months time and be more specific when certain elements allow it, as i do not want to be the source of more posts all over the internet - the texture sizes were working with are immense, 1024x1024 to a whopping 8192x8192, each of these texture surfaces being able to also carry a range of mapping options, animations, complex shaders and lighting information.

So the relatively small jump from 720p (or usually, sub 720p) to 1080p also brings with it a much crisper overall appearance with sharper textures and much, MUCH better Anisotropic filtering, throw in the additional benefit of being able to use tesselation and you have yourself quite a full toolbox to hammer out a very beautiful game.

That isn't to say the WiiU isn't capable, because it is, it just doesn't have as many tools in it's box available to it, or the system resources to display them.

Your theory completely disregards the advancement of technology to a point where hardware, which is a hell of a lot more advanced now than it was in 2006, is cheaper to produce than the inferior tech from back then, and if theyre going with a SIP based design then the unit costs and overall production costs will be far less.

Long story short, and i speak with a certain level of personal knowledge of these systems, They're capable of much more than you're antitipating, which a much wider scope for future progression in eeking more out of each system.

Let me give this a little scope here,

When working on the Gamecube we were mostly using 128x128 or similar sized textures for objects, 256x256 for large repeating ground and structural textures and 512x512 for cinematic cuts or extremely large things such as skymaps, nothing higher, similar was true for PS2 titles.

When working on PS3 and Xbox 360 the norm was 512x512 up to 2048x2048, the latter again used for extremely large surfaces, with the WiiU development units in our partner development houses and associates, the maximum recommended size is also 2048x2048,  with most opting to use 512x512 to 1024x1024 or deriatives of this.

For the other units we are currently working with - and i promise to come back to this thread in 4 months time and be more specific when certain elements allow it, as i do not want to be the source of more posts all over the internet - the texture sizes were working with are immense, 1024x1024 to a whopping 8192x8192, each of these texture surfaces being able to also carry a range of mapping options, animations, complex shaders and lighting information.

So the relatively small jump from 720p (or usually, sub 720p) to 1080p also brings with it a much crisper overall appearance with sharper textures and much, MUCH better Anisotropic filtering, throw in the additional benefit of being able to use tesselation and you have yourself quite a full toolbox to hammer out a very beautiful game.

That isn't to say the WiiU isn't capable, because it is, it just doesn't have as many tools in it's box available to it, or the system resources to display them.

Well, you don't give me much to argue against... I'm no developer and know nothing about teach, so I'm in over my head right now... I based my argument all around financial aspects, since that's something I at least can understand and get my head around.

But this really intrigues me! By the sound of you, PS720 will be quite more powerful. Would you mind telling me how much more powerful they'll be? And please remember that I'm to teach-head, so use as simple words and explanations as possible ^^ What I'm most keen to know is if we'll see another "Wii situation", where 2 consoles are 20x stronger than Nintendos...

And what option did you vote for ^^

I have to say that after watching the latest ND, I have to bring this whole statement into question... Have you seen the XenoGame trailer? It's perhaps not leaps and bounce a head of the graphics found on PS360, but as far as open worlds goes, it's at least on par with the bestout there - and it won't be released until late 2013 at the earliest (which means about 9 months of polish - minimum). And the trailer has better texture than Red Dead Red, and XenoGame is an EARLY game for Wii U, whereas Red Dead Red wasn't. I don't buy into that you're opting to use 1024x1024 on textures for the Wii U, and I think that trailer shows how wrong you are.

But that isn't to say that PS720 won't have 8192x8192 textures, mind you.

Upon release of both, yes the WiiU will be positioned much less powerful than the others, in more or less the same power-gap seen by the Wii.

Yes i have seen XenoGame but it's really not that technically impressive, from a developers perspecive, the overall look is fine in small screenshots and videos, but on the big screen it's on par with (at best) a PS3/360 game, and at worst, on part with a poor ps3/360 game, the textures we use for each console are based on the recommended values given in the SDK, we can use higher providing we are willing to make sacrifices elsewhere to make room in memory, but in general no - i seriously doubt xeno uses anything over 1024x1024, theyre in all probability overlaying one 1024x1024 texture with another containing alpha to break up the repitition of the texture, or using a detail texture for terra maps that is 2048x512 superimposed under the terrain map which will be made up of several 1024x1024 textures painted in to give the effect of a diverse and detailed land map.

Of course if you throw in some 2d foliage sprites you break up the repition even more.

But generally, no, i watched the XenoGame trailer and I can say, hand on heart, that if that's the champion of the WiiU graphics department, when the competitiors release later this year the WiiU will be undoubtably in the same power gap placement as the Wii has been this generation.

Well, I'm not especially teach savvy, so I can't argue anything in your post, and I can hardly understand half of it. But I'll just say that this probably is a relatively early build of the game, and it won't come out until the end of this year, or perhaps even next year. This will of course mean that Monolith will have quite some time left to refine it. Xenoblade looked a lot better when it released than the first footage we saw of it, so I'm expecting this to be true this time around again.

And I still don't think we'll see a similar situation as Wii vs PS360 this gen; assuming the Wii U costs ca $250 to manufacture, excluding the gamepad, PS720 will costs a whole lot more if we're to have another Wii situation. And as I stated in the OP, Sony can't afford to lose too much money on the PS4. Even losing $50/sold console will hit them hard, so we can expect the PS4 to be sold around $400, and lets just assume it also costs $400 to manufacture; that's a $150 difference between Wii U and PS4 then. Surely, that won't allow the PS4 to be miles a head of the Wii U - power wise. Certainly not a Wii - PS3 gap anyways...

In the end no matter how powerful a peice of hardware is, it's up to the software developers to push the envlope - what you're missing here is that the architecture of the new Sony and Microsoft console is very similar to the PC, with all three platforms as close to standardized as they've ever been before, it will be  possible for develops of all three platforms to push the envelope of graphical quality, knowing the hardware has the grunt to back up.

While the WiiU may in some ways be more powerful than the ps3 and 360, it's weaker in others. There is no question of the power gap between the wiiU and the next consoles from Sony and Microsoft, putting it simply the WiiU is more or less on a graphical quality level of early to mid life ps3/360 games, neither Microsoft or Sony can afford to release a console that isn't a big jump in quality and performance over their current consoles, as being the one to release the inferior console would result in a massive bullet hole in their proverbial foot, as it just wouldn't sell.

The first generation titles will be noticeably better than the current (end of life) titles for PS3 and 360, with higher native resolutions and framerates, the higher native resolution putting across the additional visual quality nicely, with things only getting more and more detailed as engines improve.

For example, Once UE4 finds it's way to the nextbox and PS4, expect a large crop of games running on it to look absolutely beautiful.

As you use a unreleased game with nearly a year left of development as you quality milestone, let me use the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBcS759H8_E

A tech demonstration of Unreal Engine 4 running realtime 3D, something that will be possible on the next generation xbox and playstation.

Then of course the following, Agni's Philosophy, which will ultimately be an engine for the next generation xbox and playstation square enix games.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVX0OUO9ptU

Unless Sony and Microsoft screw up completely with their release and pricing (which neither are likely to do) the WiiU will bedead last in terms of power and quality.