How disingenious. You conveniently omit to mention the amount of RAM in your biased analysis. And again, you mention that with better hardware, PCs are better. That was not the point, but you just can't help but keep shoving this down everyone's throat. Just like this 1080p comment you like to boast about at every single turn for no reason other than to brag about your setup. ¬_¬

The point was that similar specs for similar specs, consoles are more efficient than PCs. Put 512MB of RAM in those PC build you talked about and then come back with a fair analysis.

Now, you mentioned Mantle. That may change all this (and is a very nice tech if it works as intended), but let's wait until it's out before passing judgment. ¬_¬


And btw, Crysis, on a PC with specs similar to the XBox 360's ran like horse shit.

It looks like you came here to crush more minds and myths Hehehe. Master race FTW. Mantle will bring even more goodness for the time being. 

I thought after Need for Speed, it was agreed that the Wii U was more powerful than the 360/PS3.

It depends on what you mean by more "powerful". It was explained in this thread despite the fact that the wii u likely has a deficit in faw shading power such as the amount of theoretical floating point performance but it can still achieve better graphics due to a more modern architecture with more memory to play around with. 

I have a few points to make here that seem to usually get overlooked when people examine the Wii U in detail:

1) It seems like the millionth time I am saying this, but the Wii U uses FLASH memory, not a hard disk drive. This drives down power consumption immensely, increases performance, and enhances reliability through the roof. This memory is pricey and Nintendo chose to use it for the aforementioned reasons, as opposed to shoving a gigantic hard drive in that had more negatives than positives.

2) From what I have seen of 1st-party Nintendo titles on Wii U, they are using 2x AA by default and V-Sync across ALL games. The V-Sync is HUGE, especially noticeable on multi-plats because 360 and PS3 have quite obvious tearing in so many games.

3) Though the CPU is slower than XOne or PS4 due to fewer cores and slightly lower clock speed, the chip itself is actually a better architecture and more powerful per core; if Nintendo were to use six cores and match the speed of XOne or PS4 (either or), it would be a MORE POWERFUL CPU. The developer of Nano Assault Neo (and some others, can't remember off the top of my head) have stated they don't even use one core fully, and there are THREE. The PowerPC chip they are using is pretty robust and many people are quick to jump on the low clock speed or smaller amount of cores when they don't think it through. Remember that XOne uses Kinect and PS4 uses PS Eye, and both have MUCH larger OSes.

4) Wii U has 2 GB of RAM compared to the 8 GBs each found in PS4 and XOne. It is also slower than the other two consoles. This being said, the actual amount deficit isn't as great as it seems on paper. This is because 1 GB (and sometimes a few MBs more for 1st-party software at minimum) is dedicated to games on the U, where maybe 3-3.5 GBs are available at any time for the other two, whether due to Kinect or OS use. It's a deficit, but not catastrophic.

5) Clearly, the Wii U's GPU is beefier than everyone has realized. I mentioned V-Sync and AA earlier, and I wasn't kidding about the always-on V-Sync. The only people used to V-Sync are PC players like myself, and it's awesome to not have to worry about screen tear. It's sweet. Plus, from what I hear, the RGB lock on certain colours has been lifted with the latest update, so it doesn't restrict colour output.

Side-stepping the issue.
If you take Oblivion for instance, on the PC you could scale it down to 512Mb of Ram, Geforce 3 and a Pentium 3. - That's Xbox 1 Level GPU/CPU there which was an Xbox 360 game.

In general, of course the PC needs more Ram, it's doing 9000x more things at once than the console are and with better image quality, that kind of thing isn't for free you know.
Hows about those Next-Generation consoles and their OS's using more Ram than my PC just for OS and a couple of applications? And they still can't do 1/10th of what my PC can?

As for Crysis running like crap on hardware similar to the consoles, that simply ain't true. You could achieve 30fps by dropping the game to Direct X 9, applying a few tweaks to get the Ultra quality. - It's was well documented on the Crysis forums.

Heck, a 6 year old PC can still run every Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 Multiplatform game at 720P with at-least 30fps with a $30 GPU upgrade, Crysis Included.

As for 27" 1440P panels, they're now at a point where they are reasonably cheap, I.E. Couple hundred bucks. - If you have a high-end GPU, you shouldn't really be stuck in last-decade stuff and using 1080P unless you want 120hz.

If you think I'm being biased, so be it. I really couldn't care less, I've been accused of being an Xbox and a Playstation fanboy in the past on these forums, which is ironic really.

PS4 and XB1 have literally no excuse to not out-perform their predecessors (leaving the bad CoD PS4 port with terrible framerate aside), we all know Wii U is not a huge leap compared to PS360, so I don't see why we need to compare it the same way...

Off-shelf PC GPU? Just to put this out, no 40nm 160 shader GPU out there in the market has as much GPU logic as Latte does. All of them (including cards like lower end 6000, 7000, 8000 and the newer R2 xxx cards) are around ~ 67 mm2 in size, while also sharing around ~ 330 million transistors each. Latte is far larger than any 160 shader part at 156.21mm2, and it has well over 700 million transistors (excluding eDRAM). It doesn't make too much sense for Nintendo to have taken only an off-shelf GPU, reduce shaders, TMUs or ROPs and leave it at that considering size, process and transistor count. Latte doesn't compare to any 160 shader part, at all, period.

Just note, I'm not saying it has more shaders, more texture mapping units (if it even has any) nor ROPs, I'm just saying that Latte has a ton of logic that you simply cannot explain without the aid of newer documentation. As for 3rd party ports running bad on Wii U, you can easily blame documentation. Yes, it's an excuse, and a very relevant excuse. It was terrible before launch, and if you don't have the entire API well documented, then you're stuck with as much development effort put into the games as to how the PS4 version of Ghosts is demonstrating its performance. For PS4, there is literally no excuse for that cheap-looking game like Ghosts to run with terrible framerate on that hardware. Though, I don't blame the hardware, I blame the developers. Same thing applies to Wii U, although on a worser scale considering how I'm sure PS4 is easier to develop for than Wii U, and the PS4 documentation is a lot easier to follow than Wii Us.

Your forgetting the fact that the eDRAM takes up a significant amount of die space. After all cache doesn't cost a small amount of transistors. BTW I don't literally mean "off the shelf" that was a slight hyperbole. By that I mean pretty damn similar. If it truly had around 700 million transistors of enabled logic then why is it so hard for the wii u to completely beat the PS360 and why does it consume 35 watts in total not including the disc drives etc ? Right now 600 million transistors of logic make sense because the actual graphics processing component is around 100mm^2 not the 156mm^2 you initally thought. It could easily compare to a 320 shader part that has some disabled shaders too and BTW none of those 160 shader parts make sense because they only have 4 rops so don't just assume that I am referring to 160 shader parts. An HD 5550 is looking pretty likely right now for what nintendo has used as a base. 

Oh as for your "latte" having more logic do you even know if all of that is ENABLED logic. IE the shaders that ACTUALLY WORK. It's very common to see some alot of GPU manufacturers disable a part of the DIE that NOT WORKING. Since the "latte" probably has around 900 million transistors in total and a third of it is probably reserved for things like the eDRAM. Half of it is probably used for things like GPU logic and the rest is used to create extra eDRAM and and GPU logic so that the chip doesn't end up having less yields.

Do we even have a DF or LOT analysis to even come to the conlusion that it runs worse on the PS4 ? (Doesn't matter anyways since the PS4 is just 5 days away from analysis.) 

You must be joking about crysis.The internet was crying back then with how much demanding and badly optimised its engine was. As for the rest of your points, sure, consoles don't have to run as many things, which makes them more efficient. You talk about scaling things down on PC to achieve better performance. You have to scale them to a point where the games look just the same, if not worse, than they do on consoles (with same specs).  And then you imply mods and ini tweaks to make sure the game doesn't even run as intended. As I said, you're being disingenious.

As for your bias, one has to be totally blind to not see you're a PC elitist.

are you ninjanlade?...  i see you created a new  profile!!! ;)