trine 2 played into the wiiu gpu strength, the cpu was hardly being used. i just don't see how bops 2  wus running sub hd, with worst frame it then 360/ps3 the system is bottle necked, and many tech experts have confirmed this to me, and i'm sure your tech knowedge can be compared to the mods on beyond3d, which actually developed games.

The 360/PS3 are very heavily bottlenecked, this is widely known. It has taken a long time for devs to get around the bottlenecks in 360/PS3 (just look at the early games on those consoles, especially ports between the systems).  As far as bottlenecks on the WiiU, we don't really know if/what bottlenecks exist, Nintendo has been very adament saying that it focused on memory latency a lot, as well as architecture efficiency, and I remember a couple developers praising the memory architecture, so it could be more of an optimization issue than anything else. In the case of BLOPS2, again, they had very little time to optomize the game for the hardware based on the dev kit release date, and there are many reasons why a quick port (quick by necessity, not laziness) generally performs poorly compared to the lead console, even on a console with more raw power. Add to this the fact that those games were optomized for consoles with higher raw clock speed, and it makes sense that CPU intensive scenes would have issues without propor time to re-code the CPU tasks. Keep in mind that the raw clock speed on the cores of the PS4/Nextbox are rumored lower than last gen as well (with more cores), and you'll realize that re-coding would be necessary to utilize those processors correctly (meaning an algorithm designed to run a single thread at 3.2GHz would run like shit on one of the Nextbox/PS4 1.6GHz cores if not re-coded properly). Again, WiiU is weaker than the PS4/nextbox by some margin yet to be known, but somewhat stronger and much more efficient than the current systems.

Also, you still don't realize the potential positive effect of tessellation + DX11 type instructions (less processing cost for better visual results) vs DX9 era instructions. Newer architecture can do more with less brute force. You have to look at the whole picture and the results in games DESIGNED FOR THE NEW ARCHITECTURE to get an accurate representation, this will take time.

can you please post on beyond3d, i'm the poster shinobi and i asked several times is wiiu more powerful then current gen, why do they tell me its on par and not stronger, i'm sorry but i can't see you being a better souce then them cause i know they have a rep as being the best place to discuss tech, not to mention they were on the money on the amount gflops before the gpu pic even came out.

Jim Morrison from Chipworks (the amazing peeps that gave us the GPU die image and will soon be posting the CPU as well) has stated some details.

1. This GPU is custom.
2. If it was based on ATI/AMD or a Radeon-like design, the chip would carry die marks to reflect that. Everybody has to recognize the licensing. It has none. Only Renesas name which is a former unit of NEC.
3. This chip is fabricated in a 40 nm advanced CMOS process at TSMC and is not low tech
4. For reference sake, the Apple A6 is fabricated in a 32 nm CMOS process and is also designed from scratch. It’s manufacturing costs, in volumes of 100k or more, about $26 - $30 a pop. Over 16 months degrade to about $15 each
a. Wii U only represents like 30M units per annum vs iPhone which is more like 100M units per annum. Put things in perspective.
5. This Wii U GPU costs more than that by about $20-$40 bucks each making it a very expensive piece of kit. Combine that with the IBM CPU and the Flash chip all on the same package and this whole thing is closer to $100 a piece when you add it all up
6. The Wii U main processor package is a very impressive piece of hardware when its said and done.

Trust me on this. It may not have water cooling and heat sinks the size of a brownie, but its one slick piece of silicon. eDRAM is not cheap to make. That is why not everybody does it. Cause its so dam expensive

can you please post on beyond3d, i'm the poster shinobi and i asked several times is wiiu more powerful then current gen, why do they tell me its on par and not stronger, i'm sorry but i can't see you being a better souce then them cause i know they have a rep as being the best place to discuss tech, not to mention they were on the money on the amount gflops before the gpu pic even came out.

They are biased, plain and simple. Just from raw numbers, how is 353 the same as 240 and not better? How do they assume that the higher efficiency and DX11 level instructions mean nothing? How do they assume that newer tech does not give any additional real-world benefits per flop over older tech? How do they assume that rushed day 1 ports are indicators of the max potential of the system? It makes no sense to me and I've been in the IT field for almost 10 years. Also, I have no interest in joining beyond3d. I'm not saying this is some massive leap over PS360, it's not, but it is certainly more powerful by at least some meaningful margin.

mabye you try reading from page 173 to 179 or here is a quote from the mod Shifty Geezer

Except the is no evidence we know that the GPU is a new gpu chip using AMD tech in it no one in the PC scene has even seen it so to tell people that it can do this when they don't even know what the tech is is quite frankly beyond amusing and those sucking it up are gullible as even the person themselves has made assumptions and speculations which flat out says he's guessing. They don't even know what GPU it is and have been speculating for months whether it's a HD this or that now it's come to light that it's a new chip specifically built for the U that no one has ever seen, that alone sets alarm bells off on the speculations.