3rd die: 2.65mm^2
So no it isn't theoretical to say that the PS3 has more CPU performance. It isn't theoretical so say that the PS3 has twice the memory bandwidth. So whilst you're busy arguing based on wishful thinking the facts are starting to emerge. You can't simplify 7 years of tool development and PowerPC optimisation as 'wait for the performance' when all the hard work has already been done. The Wii U is based on existing technology so I wouldn't hold my breath for optimisation when that optimisation has already been done for the most part.
So, how much edram does the Wii U have? What is the bandwidth and latency of this edram? How is it allocated between frame-buffers and texture cache?
If the PS3 is more powerful than the Wii U, and the Wii U is rendering 50% more pixels than the PS3, why don't we see significant improvements in visuals in highly optimized PS3 games over first generation Wii U games?
6 years or work by Epic, Ubisoft, EA Games/Bioware, Activision and Rocksteady working to optimize performance for the PS3 and the Wii U gets similar performance while rendering to a second screen on ports created by small/unknown developers who were rushed to make it out for launch; either these games were ported by the best developers in the world or the Wii U is more powerful. TODAY we have evidence that the Wii U is more powerful ... We can't say much beyond that because nothing has been shown to be dramatically more demanding than PS3 games, but you would have to be in denial to argue otherwise.
How much eDRAM? 32MB is the most likely quantity given the strong suggestions made by multiple sources. The allocation is likely up to the developer.
We also know that it consumes 33 watts of power when running a game.
So yes a 33W console with small die sizes and tiny memory bandwidth isn't a graphical behemoth. Every number which has come out has not pointed to the Wii U being a powerful console even compared to the ancient PS3 and Xbox 360.