PS XBOX GPUs are barely more powerful so WiiU will have no problem in that regard

Yeah you are right about it.... tech people do compare console specs with pc specs and thats the problem ...consoles are much more capable with an ordinary GPU than a PC with the same GPU would be...

But other than that it is true that next generation of gaming will not be defined by graphics...its hard for SOME people around here to realize that but its fact...   At any other generation jump you could easily see the graphical difference but thats not the case this time...  So in a way we can tell that Nintendo is fine because they have innovative brains to make games for the wii u which will be fantastic gameplay wise as well as graphic wise...I'm of course referring to Nintendos first and second party games...these games can easily beat any other exclusive...

Its Sony and Microsoft who should show more innovation..furthermore they shouldn't release a console above 400$ because as you already said : the masses will always buy the cheapest one which would be the Wii U...AND these people won't see any difference between the wii u and the other consoles...

Nintendo is fine...Sony and Microsoft...not so

The problem is we need the games to compare in the 1st place.

You're being way too optimistic. With custom the GPU is and how Nintnedo doesn't play nice with 3rd parties.....we could be looking at Nintendo's next Gamecube. That's not necessarily a bad thing though. 

They're much more powerful, especially the PS4 GPU. It's about more than just GPUs though. PS4 and next Xbox have a RAM and CPU advantage as well. This is where developers will have the most trouble doing ports.

gamecube had alot of built in features, which im assuming trasnferred over to the Wii as well. Just cause they are there doesnt mean developers will use them. Every game on the cube shouldve had bump mapping cuz if I recall it was a feature built into the gpu but needless to say not every title did. I believe, much like sony, the best looking games will come from the 1st and 2nd parties and I am certain they will look amazing. I mean, look at Xenoblade, Galaxy, Corruption and Other M. Those games were and still are beautful on underpowered hardware. And looking at the early version of X, I dont think there is anything to worry about. It will be a helluva fight between that game and Witcher 3 based on scale alone.

The Wii GPU also has to follow laws its small and low powered it can not be strong on a 40nm process thats just not possible. Its rumored they have the entire Wii GPU on there for Backwardscompatibility I am sure the Wii U is capable of surpassing PS3/360 but it wont be comparable to next gen, the difference will be obvious.

1. Wii U's problems are about more than just its power.
2. PS4/720 are designed to be in it for the long haul. These consoles will peak in their 5th or 6th years. This is only possible due to the amazing 3rd party support these consoels will receive.
3. @bold......I think you severely underestimate people. Just wait until the 20th. I'll have some amazing gifs for you.
4. Nintendo is NOT fine. Sony and Microsoft are in much better positions going into the next generation.

Wow so much fail in you post...

1. Wii U doesn't have any problems whatsoever....fanboys just nitpick ...there is no problem which can't be solved due to a software update...and the wii u will get two major ones the next months...

2. you really think that these consoles will live that long?...wow so let me get this stright: These "consoles" won't make profit because they will be too expensive due to their "future" proof hardware...so that makes sense...its the PS3 all over again...and this time its expected xD LMAO
Don'T you think that Sony learnt after the failure that was the PS3 launch ??? Do you really think they would be stupid enough to pull that again?...Well if that the case and Idon't see why not due to the rumoured specs...then its time so say goodbye to Sony...And Microsoft?? Well they will get their asses handed by the Steambox...thats for sure

3. No, you don't understand people...first: people won't see the tiny differences in graphics like you think what would happen... and second: see above = these "amazing gifts" will eiter be NOT so amazing or just flat out wrong because of the reasons I stated above...so pick your poison!

4. Well Sony just reported their next financial losses...Need I say more ??? I stopped counting their years without profit because its that many...

Here is an interesting video from ReviewTechUSA about this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2jIrK8cWqA

Buttom line = if Sony listen to some of your argument (not yours alone) than....well .... I think you know whats happening then

more realistic scenerio is from beyond3D

With all the peeping at die shots (which has been tremendous fun) I think we might have gotten tunnel vision and be losing the "big picture". The question of "320 vs 160" shaders is still unanswered and stepping back should help us answer it.

The current popular hypothesis that Latte is a 16:320:8 part @ 550 mHz. Fortunately, we can see how such a part runs games on the PC. You know, the PC, that inefficient beast that's held back by Windows, thick APIs, Direct X draw-call bottlencks that break the back of even fast CPUs, and all that stuff. Here is a HD 5550, a VLIW5 GPU with a 16:320:8 configuration running at @550 mhz:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/H...HD_5550/7.html

And it blows past the 360 without any problems. It's not even close. And that's despite being on the PC!

Now lets scale things back a bit. This is the Llano A3500M w/ Radeon 6620G - a 20:400:8 configuration GPU, but it runs @ 444 MHz meaning it has exactly the same number of gflops and TMU ops as the HD 5550, only it's got about 20% lower triangle setup and fillrate *and* it's crippled by a 128 bit DDR 1333 memory pool *and* it's linked to a slower CPU than the above benchmark (so more likely to suffer from Windows/DX bottlenecks). No super fast pool of edram for this poor boy!

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4444/a...pu-a8-3500m/11
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4444/a...pu-a8-3500m/12

And it *still* comfortably exceeds the 360 in terms of the performance that it delivers. Now lets look again at the Wii U. Does it blow past the 360? Does it even comfortably exceed the 360? No, it:

keeps
losing
marginally
to
the
Xbox
360

... and that's despite it *not* being born into the performance wheelchair that is the Windows PC ecosystem. Even if the Wii U can crawl past the 360 - marginally - in a game like Trine 2 it's still far below what we'd expect from a HD5550 or even the slower and BW crippled 6620G. So why is this?

It appears that there two options. Either Latte is horrendously crippled by something (API? memory? documentation? "drivers"?) to the point that even equivalent or less-than equivalent PC part can bounce its ass around the field, or ... it's not actually a 16:320:8 part.

TL: DR version:
Latte seems to be either:
1) a horrendously crippled part compared to equivalent (or lower) PC GPUs, or
2) actually a rather efficient 160 shader part

Aaaaaaand I'll go with the latte(r) as the most likely option. Face it dawgs, the word on the street just don't jive with the scenes on the screens


.I agree that there is probably something missing. The 320 number don't seem to match up with anything. The layout of the SIMD looks like its the same as for 20 ALUs with the same number of cache blocks. The only thing explaining 320 SPs is the supposed 40nm process and the block being slightly too big. Even that doesn't explain it fully.

The SIMD blocks are 60% the size of Llano's and only about 30% larger than bobcat's 20 SPs. Even on 40nm, its pretty absurd that the density increased so much. We also don't have conclusive evidence it is 40nm. The only thing the pins 40nm right now seems to be the eDRAM size. Which is a really rough estimate from what I can tell.

There is too much unconfirmed things. I don't even know how everyone jumped onto the 320 SPs ship so fast. So far the similarities of the SIMD blocks compared with bobcat should point at 20 shaders per block at a larger manufacturing process. Thats what you'd get if you only looked at the SIMD blocks.

I find its much more likely they found a way to pack eDRAM slightly denser than to somehow pack the ALU logic smaller and cut away half the cache blocks. Or maybe the whole chip is 40nm but the logic isn't packed very dense because it is not originally designed for that process and fab. This is all much more likely from my point of view than magically have 320 SPs in so little space.