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353gflops with added fixed functions and more modern tech (such as tessellation) is not 'on par' with 240gflops on outdated tech with DX9 instructions and no mondern enhancements.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 240Gflops on old, outdated, inefficient tech.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353gflops with added fixed functions and more modern tech (such as tessellation) is not 'on par' with 240gflops on outdated tech with DX9 instructions and no mondern enhancements.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.

Though it's slower right?

I have no clue at this point, Wii U is so fucking customized that I literally have no thought on it right now, too many damn black boxes to even get a good idea.

You are on a crusade Ninja you're on the Nintendo boards frequently and post the same stance everytime.