stong evidence suggests it's 12.8GB you are the only persion that has questioned this so far. here the better answer for you, nintendo main focuse was creating a small efficante console, with current gen graphics, that had came out in 2012, impressive but not impossible, i don't understanf the point of this question though?

Evidence suggests it is 12.8 GB/s, but it's not a certainty. That's the only point that matters, here. There is an assumption that it's working in 16 bit. Furthermore, it's worth noting that, while the main memory bandwidth may not be exceptional, it has the eDRAM to set it apart from the other systems. Just thought I'd add that in here.

And you don't seem to be answering the question I'm asking. I'm not asking WHY Nintendo made such a low-power system, and I'm not asking how low-power it is. I'm asking how they achieved it, when comparable hardware on the PS3 and 360 uses much, much more. How did they do it? Can you answer that question? If not, it's kind of silly to assume you know everything you need to know about the system.

Consider that Nintendo themselves said the system would use 45 W at peak, while we haven't seen it go above 32 W. Even if we factor in the psu efficiency, that still leaves about 8-10 W unaccounted for. Can you explain it? If not, then it's not time to assume that you know everything you need to know about the Wii U's GPU.

I have to agree with this 100%.  Everyone let's you know what's in their product, nowadays. Sony and MS will release their specs, either at the consoles' announcements or at E3.  For Nintendo to expect people to just buy a mystery box is unacceptable in this day and age.  Imagine if new phones came out, but wouldn't let you know how much better they were from the previous ones.  People would freak.

the 360 slim released 2 years ago cut the orginal 360 power usage in half and was released 2 years ago, now that was 2 years ago and they were probably happy the outcome and that watt usage was the goal, now this was based on a system from 2005 that was a power hungry beast, now lets look at wii, the main focus is making the console efficiant and only use 33 watts of power which is locked, you can't go over that, and this this was released  2 years after the slim, so if you can't use common sense then i can't help you.

yup i agree also, its unacceptable, but i think nintendo said they view there consoles as toys.

It took them five years to cut the 360's power usage in half, but the Wii U beats it while using less than half again, within just two years?

I asked you for an explanation, not a justification. I get that efficiency improves with time. I understand that. But you still haven't explained HOW they did it. That's the part I'm challenging you on. And it's not actually because I want you to explain it to me. I really don't need the explanation itself. I'm trying to get you to think about the situation from a different perspective - something which you've fought quite hard against, throwing false response after false response at me rather than recognising the obvious point of my question - there are things about the Wii U GPU we don't yet understand. Stop acting as though we know everything about it.

All this speculation seems kind of hollow to me given that (A) we still don't know what a sizable chunk of the chip does, (B) people can't even seem to agree on a lot of what they've discovered so far, and (C) it's too early in the lifecycle for even devs to have discovered its potential.

 we don't know everything about it, but tech experts say we have strong evidence that it could 160 sp or 320 sp, its one those,and thing the most important thing in the gpu, the is a very wierd situation because nintendo is hiding the specs, the ports are inferior and nothing i have seen so far looks impressive graphicly IMHO. so what do suggest, we assume the wiiu has DBZ hidden power when there is no evidence suggesting THAT at the moment, even then now with more carteful anylasis peopel are mostly saying 160 SP.

Since when have launch games, especially ports, ever demonstrated a system's full power?

Tech experts can't fully decide between 160 sp and 320 sp. To be completely blunt, I see no reason to trust them when they can't make up their mind on something so fundamental. Especially when one of the main reasons for saying 160 sp is comparison with Llano, which is a different architecture, and isn't even a GPU (it's an APU).

Meanwhile, you repeat your false claim that the Wii U ports are "inferior". As I pointed out, Sonic Racing is getting better performance on the Wii U despite producing more pixels (yes, it produces more pixels - like I said, it has to generate the Upad images, too, and they're not just copies of the main screen image). What's more, you base your claim on two specific games - Sonic Racing and BO2. Trine 2 is distinctly better on the Wii U in terms of graphical quality. Meanwhile, Digital Foundry, who made the claim that the Wii U version isn't as strong as the others, makes specific note that it looks like they've pretty much lifted all of the graphics from the 360 version, and just inserted them into the Wii U version. Meaning, it hasn't been at all optimised for the system. And you're comparing a launch title for a new console with a version on a well-established GPU, where they've optimised the engine dramatically already.

So yeah, again, you're just trying to bypass the point, rather than addressing it.