WiiU RAM is called ChRAM. It's made of Chocolate.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=60501&page=179 fourth storm the guy who was in charge on the gpu pic operation came to this site to ask for help, i asked them before the gpu pic was released and after, they tell me its on par, even a theory of it being weaker, just for refernce thrakter and blu, the so neogaf experts were predicting 450-700 gflops, beyond 3d were sure it was 300-350

LOL, you didn't address any of the obvious issues that were pointed out regarding your flamebait sig. The WiiU CPU is OOOE, while the 360 CPU is not, WiiU CPU has more, faster cache, and is highly specialized. Just based on what is assumed, 353gflops with added fixed functions and more modern tech (such as tessellation) is not 'on par' with 240gflops on outdated tech with DX9 instructions and no mondern enhancements. Even so, about half of the blocks on the GPU are not identified, and there's speculation that some of them could be asymetric shaders that would push the guess of 353gflops up higher. You're assuming that the 50% unidentified blocks do absolutely nothing to add to the real-world power, so what are they, decoration? It's pretty obvious that some of the unidentified parts of a 'custom' GPU would be the 'custom' parts, designed to enhance performance/efficiency in some way (fixed functions, asymetrical shaders, whatever). 2GB RAM is not 'on par' with 512MB (and your throughput assumption is just a guess based on single channel RAM, it could be double that with dual channel, so just another piece of speculation). Your sig is such obvious flamebait.

Look, nobody thinks that the WiiU is as powerful as the PS4/Nextbox will be, but it is simply not 'on par' with or weaker than the PS360 either, simply due to modern architecture and DX11 feature set - irrespective of FLOPS (which are higher in your sig anyway!). It's obvious that the WiiU's GPU is very efficient, something that the PS3 and 360 are certainly not. If we go with the 'guess' that exists now, 353 highly efficient GFlops (based only on 50% of the GPU blocks) with fixed functions & better instruction set >>>>>>>> 240Gflops on old, outdated, inefficient tech. We'll just need to wait for games built specifically for the architecture to see this.

LOL, you didn't address any of the obvious issues that were pointed out regarding your flamebait sig. The WiiU CPU is OOOE, while the 360 CPU is not, WiiU CPU has more, faster cache, and is highly specialized. Just based on what is assumed, 353gflops with added fixed functions and more modern tech (such as tessellation) is not 'on par' with 240gflops on outdated tech with DX9 instructions and no mondern enhancements. Even so, about half of the blocks on the GPU are not identified, and there's speculation that some of them could be asymetric shaders that would push the guess of 353gflops up higher. You're assuming that the 50% unidentified blocks do absolutely nothing to add to the real-world power, so what are they, decoration? It's pretty obvious that some of the unidentified parts of a 'custom' GPU would be the 'custom' parts, designed to enhance performance/efficiency in some way (fixed functions, asymetrical shaders, whatever). 2GB RAM is not 'on par' with 512MB (and your throughput assumption is just a guess based on single channel RAM, it could be double that with dual channel, so just another piece of speculation). Your sig is such obvious flamebait.

Look, nobody thinks that the WiiU is as powerful as the PS4/Nextbox will be, but it is simply not 'on par' with or weaker than the PS360 either, simply due to modern architecture and DX11 feature set - irrespective of FLOPS (which are higher in your sig anyway!). It's obvious that the WiiU's GPU is very efficient, something that the PS3 and 360 are certainly not. If we go with the 'guess' that exists now, 353 highly efficient GFlops (based only on 50% of the GPU blocks) with fixed functions & better instruction set >>>>>>>> 240Gflops on old, outdated, inefficient tech. We'll just need to wait for games built specifically for the architecture to see this.

I changed my sig to be more accurate, still the over all consensus is on par with current gen on beyond3d, i'm not gonna trust your nintendo biased anylasis, i would love to see you post your theory on beyond3d, and if people agree with you i will be happy to eat crow, still i find it funny that every single cpu intensive game was inferior on wiiu compared to current gen, not to mention many games had bandwidth issue, and no graphical upgrades what so ever sure doesn't scream new tech to me. if a mod has a problem with my sig, they can message me.

Some rushed CPU intensive ports programmed & optimized for older architecture had issues, a GPU intensive game programmed for newer architecture (Trine 2) was able to pull off graphical effects not possible on the older consoles at higher resolution with better results in every catagory. Different architecture, not equal to or on par, and not fully understood yet. I already said PS4/Nextbox will be quite a bit more a bit more powerful, so not sure why you think I'm being Nintendo biased on that. You're clearly more biased against Nintendo than just about anybody I've seen here, why the crusade against Nintendo? You pretty much have an orgasm any time something suggests the WiiU is 'weak' or 'underpowered'. It's pretty pathetic IMO.