wii is nothing compared too the power of CELL.

You have got to be kidding when you said Wii graphics can be as good as 360 or PS3's best because that's just a complete fabrication... You're accusing the MS guy of making stuff up, but you're doing the same.

OK let's make some serious speaking: RESOLUTION. THE MAGIC WORD IS RESOLUTION. why x360 and ps3 are so expansive and powerful???? BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO HANDLE HIGH RESOLUTION. ???? because they must have more power,memory etc. to handle a more detailed image. BUT IF WE MAKE A 480p GAME BOTH FOR WII AND X360/PS3??? MAYBE x360/ps3 version would be better. ARE X360/PS3 GAMES DESIGNED FOR 480p??? NO!! they make such powerful consoles to make 720/1080 games. It would be a totally money waste making games only at 480p!! CAN WII INSTEAD HANDLE 720/1080 GAMES??? NO WAY. SO WE CAN REALLY MAKE A RIGHT COMPARISION BETWEEN WII AND X360/PS3 GAMES??? no/yes. the problem is that wii at its maximum can make games at 480p looking really good. instead x360/ps3 at their maximum make games optimized for720/1080 resolution. so probably THE SAME GAME AT THE SAME RESOLUTION WOULD HAVE THE SAME MORE OR LESS IMAGE QUALITY... THAT'S THE FACT!!! IT'S ABSOLUTELY USELESS HAVE MORE POLYGONS ON 480P GAME!!!!!!!!!!! look at pc games!!! play doom3 at 1280X1024 and play it at 640X480. the engine autimatically underpower graphics detail and polygons. it would be a nonsense using all power for such a resolution... so we will NEVER see games for x360/ps3 optimized for 480p resolution!!!! in x360/ps3 ALL the extra memory,ALL the extra computational power MUST be used to handle resolution!!!! ALL this extra power CANNOT be used for 480p...well...it can be used ..but nobody buy a license for x360/ps3 to develop only optimized 480p games!!!! neither you sonians/boxians paid for a system that can handle 1080 and then play 480p games on you 2000$ HD 1080p LCD!!!! so in the end graphics really doesn't matter... because: if we compare in an absolute way we all know that x360 has the best GPU. if we compare in a relative way wii has best GPU. but we all know that CELL help RSX... and we all know that wii gpu can handle only 480p resolution... moral: in the end is totally useless make a console war about graphic power.

This is getting very ridiculous. Apple switched to Intel because they were slower for years. Much more expensive? Are you serious? The one good part of Macs were they were affordable, because their CPU was so outdated. I've built computers for years, I've looked at benchmarks for years, and I can assure you that the Macs were MUCH SLOWER than Intel CPUs at any point in time for at least the last decade. Why do you think gamers didn't buy them? And if you want to talk Supercomputers, the Cell is used for those now.  Supercomputers 10 years ago aren't that fast and do not indicate consumer level prices.

The PowerPC CPU did not undergo any sort of revolution like the Core Duo. So the architechture may have improved, but not that much. I'm not sure why you guys are equating architecture improvements of first AMD that started the 1500, 1600, etc line that estimated clock speed equivalent models and then Intel's Core Duo that increased performance by 30% with PowerPC CPUs. If PowerPCs really got that much faster show me some benchmarks.

Even if the PowerPC was as efficient as the Intel Core Duo (the best processor in the world right now), it would only be abotu 50% better at the same clock speed. Yeah, that's a great improvement, but if you are still below 800MHz there's only so much better it can be.

Also, i LOVE how you guys are ignoring the other benchmarks. Look at the freaking GPU numbers on the Wii! it's barely better than previous generations as well. The RAM is even more sad of a situation. So we can continue this architecture arguement until someone shows some benchmarks but you can't change the other facts.

Oh wait, next you'll be telling me that the GPU and RAM is SUPER-MEGA-OPTIMIZED LIKE NOTHING BEFORE because for some reason Nintendo holds the secrets of computing and is selling it at a loss. Oh wait, their Wii is worth around $150. That's right, I forgot.

This is coming from a person that is going to buy a Wii, but some of you Wii fanboys are just ignorant.

Speaking of ignorant...ALKO...give me a break. You can compare the graphics by looking at every single Wii game looking inferior to anything on the 360 and PS3. I hate to break it to you but I've played every game on a SD TV and I can atest to the fact that the games look a heck of a lot better anyway. And btw, I bet Doom3 at 640x480 looks better than Wii games too.

@StarcraftManiac: God bless you.

You may be right in that no one will make a game optimized for 480p on either the 360 or the PS3, but the fact is, if they did, the game could potentially look a lot better than a downscaled 720p game. Actually I think it's arguable weather sitting at a distance from a smallish HDTV an upscalled version of a game optimized for 480p couldn't look better either. It's a simple truth that if you have less than half the pixels you can do twice the per pixel work (meaning twice the pixel/fragment/texture shader work). That's also why a slow paced game can look better at 30fps than at 60fps, and why I don't think we'll see many 1080p games this generation.

Apple switched to Intel in 2005 because the Core Duo was far more powerful than a PowerPC 970MP (G5) for the price. Back in 1999, when the G3 and Pentium III were in direct competition, Apple always bragged that IBM's G3 was twice as powerful as the Pentium III at the same clockspeed (which was somewhat true); soon afterwords Apple was braggin that the G4 was over twice (2.6 times) as powerful as the Pentium 4 at the same clockspeed. Intel's response was to increase the clockspeed so that the 400MHz G3 was in direct competition with the 1GHz Pentium 3; the 600MHz-800MHz G4s were in direct competition with 2GHz to 2.53GHz Pentium 4 processors.

IBM (and Nintendo) took the G3 processor and heavily modified it for the Gamecube; there were (approximately) 50 vector instructions added to (dramatically) improve its performance with 3D calculations. The overall result was that the Gekko was far more powerful than a standard G3 processor for 3D game applications. Whether the Gekko was more powerful then the modified Celeron that was in the XBox has been the center of debate since they were released, but the general consensus is that they're very similar in performance.

The Flipper (Gamecube's GPU) was a very different beast than what was being developed for the PC at the time (or what is currently available in the PS3 or XBox 360). In 2000/2001 both ATI and Nvidia moved towards producing graphics cards with GPUs that abandoned fixed functionality pipelines (with lots of graphical features) in favour of programmable pipelines because the incompatibility between the features across videocards prevented developers from taking advantage of these features. At the same time the Flipper was designed around built in features and was (much) faster than the PC GPUs (like the XBox's GPU) when both systems only used graphical techniques that were built into the Flipper, but the Flipper had difficulty emulating many of the pixel and vertex shaders that were possible on the PC GPUs.

Overall we know very little about either the Hollywood or Broadway processors that are in the Wii and we only know that they're based on the Gamecube's Gekko and Flipper processors; if they are only overclocked versions of these processors the Wii would be (roughly) 1.5 to 2 times as powerful as the XBox and we should see games that look somewhat better than anything in the previous generation; on the other hand if they extended the instruction set we should see games that look quite a bit better than the previous generation.

And the most expensive one too.

This thread is already heading to the way off doom/flamewars. :p

nobody knows the graphicals tricks?

there are many forms to make that something looks fine

the ps1 and ps2 use a lot of them to fight to the superior technology of the competition, and why not work now with the wii?, only for now talk about of nintendo? c´mon.

 

this are a 3DO games with the same power (32 bit chip) of the playstation, the 3do games generally dont used any type of graphical tricks. but with prerendered backgrounds, textures and videos a 32 bits machine can look like this: 

with a prerendered background 

 with prerendered video/cutscene

with prerendered background, prerendered textures of the clothes and prerendered textures of the skin and hair. with a 32 bit chip real time graphics never have anything like this.

and in the ps2 era we have some prerenderend objects in movement, dont need much power to did this, only put a video of a background or a video or animation of a object is needed.

like this

animation

animation2

animation3

and are only be a gifs images

some times the graphics of the a game depends more on the ability of the developer to put graphical tricks that put super graphics engines, i think we can see good graphics in the wii, so good graphics that the 360 or the ps3 in two or three years, the graphical tricks always evolve i dont know. 

megaxl, everyone knows about pre-rendering tricks ... They were how the Gamecube was able to do:

They are priced the same as CPUs have been for years, if not a little cheaper due to cheaper designs.  We're not even arguing price at this point, though.  Shouldn't the best cost more?  It's 30% than anything before it.