The Cell's Gigaflop numbers have been known for a long time to be just crappy marketing speak, you need to be a Jedi to even get a tiny fraction of that performance. - Remember Sony/Microsoft have a vested financial interest to one-up the other in order to draw consumers in, so some numbers are of course bloated.
Besides, that's more than what my CPU gets in the real world, which is a CPU that costs more than 2x PS3's combined, is 7 years newer... And is generally better in every way.

Besides, Gigaflops aren't the entire story, you have single and double precision, you have integers and such which are just as important to processing performance.
Heck, Microsoft is confused on how powerfull the Xbox One is, one day they are saying 2x faster than the 360, the next 40 times faster, the next it's 8 times faster then another person says it's 10 times faster...

Seriously busted out laughing.  Some people just want to live in their little world...

basicaly wii u won't leave anything to be desired in term of graphics. actually no console will ever do that again due to stagnation.

I just can't understand how some people look at games MK8, M 3D world, X, and still dare to complain about graphics.

I see Master Cheif is your avatar, so I don't mean to offend you when I say this, but I'm not interested in the One because of the quality of the exclusives. I don't need a new Halo and Forza every year, I want to see some original ideas, not available for PC. So far, all I've seen is Ryse, which was suppose to be a 360 game, so I feel a bit burnt by that.

Killer instinct is a free download, Crimson Dragon is cool, and I definatly want it, but not new and original, Dead Rising 3 could release on PC, and again, not new, and Quantum Break looks amazing, but like all other Remedy games, I think it will be available on PC.

I was arguing in your favor, Netyaroze thinks PS4 is even less powerful that we both think. I mentioned your name because people listen to you.

LOL, yea you! Look at all the other comments, Killzone is not as good looking of a game as you think, Uncharted 3 and maybe even Last of Us (have yet to play it) look a lot better, and they still aren't even 1080p.

You might want to laugh at games like Pikmin 3, but being a gore-fest, doesn't make it a good looking game.

Especially Killzone 2 (LOL), with the game pausing between load sections. Yea, wow, impressive.

Like Captain_Tom said just above "People like to live in their little world..."

It's really amazing how just the jump to 1080p 60FPS makes the game so fluid. I mean even Mario 3D World, I would say that game looks better then anything this gen because of just how natural Mario's movements look. No slowdown, no drop in FPS, native 1080p. Wii U games might not look like PS4/One games, but they are of a similar level.

Wii on the other hand, except for XenoBlade and maybe Skyward Sword, its games stood out as graphically weak compared to PS3/360.

Was... was Pikmin 3 graphics just said to be better than any PS3 game?

I'm speechless.

Yeah he thinks I am the crazy one.  LOL!

FLOPS are a metric for measuring graphics, but they are not the only metric.  The only reason the 5870 has such a high FLOPS value is because it has 1600 shaders (compared to 1280 shaders in the 7870). 

The other important metric is the core clock.  The 5870 only runs at 850 MHz while the 7870 runs at 1000 MHz. 

So the 5870 has more, but slower, shaders.  If you could utilize all of those shaders, you would be better off.

Given that console hardware is fixed for a long period of time, I think it is quite likely that late in the generation developers would have SDKs that would let them harness that extra power.

Not only that, but the Radeon 5870 was based on the VLIW5 architecture. (Very-Long-Instruction-Word)
It was an Architecture designed for optimal Direct X 9 rendering performance as it was merely an evolution of the Radeon 2000 series, which back then... Games were still pretty much exclusively utilising the Direct X 9 rendering path, so it made sense.

As time went on, AMD introduced the VLIW4 architecture with the Radeon 69xx and 68xx series as their data indicated that the 5th unit in the shader array  was pretty much going un-used in newer games. - Which were starting to drop Direct X 9.
The result was that the 69xx series had less overall shaders, but more shader arrays that will become saturated, resulting in more performance.

The GCN architecture however is more forward-looking, it's a compute heavy design which shows in allot of compute scenarios such as Bitcoin mining and Folding@Home, however each shader is vastly more programmable and powerfull than any other AMD architecture that came before it.

So in the end, whilst the 5000 series has more theoretical performance than it's more modern brothers, it is much harder to extract the performance in any meaningfull way.

Nope I dont. I actually think the PS4 will perform better than the difference in gflop numbers between PS3 and PS4 suggest.

Thanks this is what I try to argue all the time I just dont seem to find the right words. The theoretical performance of the ancient architectures of PS3/360 is even a bigger deal than vliw 5 to gcn. Its about how much of that theoretical peak performance you can actually achieve in a game not just about the peak numbers.

@DM235 Flops are not the full picture as you said. And its shortsighted to reduce everything to flops without taking all the other parameters into account.