Not only that but over time a Powersupply's unit's efficiency and maximum wattage output will literally decrease with age due to capacitor aging, hence why they have to over-engineer powersupply units in a fixed device such as this.

So you are sayng wiiu have more power, but to extract that power will demand more energy and dedication than to any other system? And yet wiil not be on the other systems levels?

This is not helping man, not helping at all.

it doesnt matter, the ibm edram was just an example of how much power consumption an edram requires, even if its from a different vendor like renesas there wont be thatmuch difference in power consumption

if ibms edram just requires 75 miliwats, how much do you expect reneas edram to require at 40nm when ibm requires that at 45nm?

even if its not as efficent i wouldnt expect it to consume more than double of that

about power dissipation, since the power supply is 73 wattsand has efficiency of 87% or more then from those 73 watts about 9.5 watts are being dissipated and wasted, here a little on power efficniency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_supply_unit_(computer)

"

Efficiency[edit]

A test in 2005 revealed computer power supplies are generally about 70–80% efficient.^[13] For a 75% efficient power supply to produce 75 W of DC output it would require 100 W of AC input and dissipate the remaining 25 W in heat. Higher-quality power supplies can be over 80% efficient; energy efficient PSU's waste less energy in heat, and requires less airflow to cool, and as a result will be quieter.

As of 2012 some high-end consumer PSUs can exceed 90% efficiency at optimal load levels, though will fall to 87-89% efficiency during heavy or light loads. Google's server power supplies are more than 90% efficient.^[14] HP's server power supplies have reached 94% efficiency.^[15] Standard PSUs sold for server workstations have around 90% efficiency, as of 2010.

The energy efficiency of a power supply drops significantly at low loads. Therefore it is important to match the capacity of a power supply to the power needs of the computer. Efficiency generally peaks at about 50–75% load. The curve varies from model to model (examples of how this curve looks can be seen on test reports of energy efficient models found on the 80 PLUS website).

Various initiatives are underway to improve the efficiency of computer power supplies. Climate savers computing initiative promotes energy saving and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging development and use of more efficient power supplies. 80 PLUS certifies power supplies that meet certain efficiency criteria, and encourages their use via financial incentives. Efficient power supplies also save money by wasting less power; as a result they use less electricity to power the same computer, and they emit less waste heat which results significant energy savings on central air conditioning in the summer. The gains of using an efficient power supply are more substantial in computers that use a lot of power.

"

since nintendo made thepower supply of 73 watts and opted for efficiency of 87%, just like wikipedia says, nintendo is doing so that it can give the rest of the power that inst dissipated to feed the power need of the console

dont expect those watts going to waste since already the 13% of that has gone on that, besides, just look how much power the 360 used in gears of war and compare it to the maxium power consumption of its power supply

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-356-2.htm

"

By: Carl Nelson [02.21.07]

While the PS3 had a lower minimum (probably due to the loading screen in between quarters in the basketball game), its average was about 13W higher than the XBOX 360playing its most advanced game, Gears of War. GoW truly squeezes every little bit that the 360 has to give, and this is probably as much power any game today will require from it.

"

and this is a report of 2007 so is obvious they usedthe original xbox 360 which had a power supply of 203 watts, so how much is 186.5 watts of those 203 watts?

and we still havent accounted the usb ports power consumption

Does the Wii U have USB ports? Because there should be some spare power for those.

already accounted, there are 4 usb ports and an sdhc, so from 33 watts in the ports the power would go up to 43.72 watts, there is still lioke 20 watts left fprthe 63.5 watts if i consider a power effficiency of just 87% but as the standard says thats the minium, and can go from 87 up to whatever nintendo aimed for

Interesting.

This.

Just because the power supply is rated for 63 watts, does not mean it has to draw 63 watts at all times.  Just that it is capable of doing so.

The power supply is not rated as 63 watts, its rated as 73 watts, the power efficiency determines how much power goes to the machine and how much power goes to waste

so if the power supply is 73 watts and efficiency is 87% or higher means that 63 watts or a bit nore goes to the machine and that 10 or less watts are dissipated as heat

you shouldnt be that surprised though, i mean, look how much watts gears of war for 360 drained, it consumed 186 watts out of the 203 wattsof the power supply, and thats without using the 3 usb ports 

The one part you're not quite comprehending, yet, is that they're saying that it's rated to use UP TO 73 Watts (at the wall), with an efficiency of 87%. It is possible that Nintendo decided to play it safe, and left plenty of buffer between the maximum draw of the system and the output capability of the supply.

Power supplies don't provide a constant level of wattage. The wattage is controlled by the thing drawing the power. In this case, the Wii U draws the power, and the power supply is rated, in effect, to be able to supply up to 63 Watts to the Wii U. The Wii U doesn't have to ever draw that much, and if it draws less, then the power supply simply uses less total power at that point in time. The Wii U doesn't have an extra 20-30 watts flowing into it that it doesn't use.

That being said, those who argue for this not being an important bit of information because of the above facts are (probably wilfully) ignoring the fact that Nintendo are huge on efficiency of design, and wouldn't provide a power supply that is rated for twice the power draw compared to what the Wii U is capable of drawing. They would undoubtedly leave a small buffer, but there's no way that it's a third to a half of the power supply's capability. If the highest the Wii U went were 40 Watts, they'd only supply a 50-55W power supply, not a more expensive 73W power supply. At the very least, this implies that Nintendo wanted to be able to overclock their system, if necessary - more likely, it's simply capable of more than what we've seen so far.

Curiously, I haven't seen any measurements done for any recent games. It would be interesting to see if 3D World has a higher power consumption rate than the launch titles that all the measurements were done for.

YET nintendo is not one of those that like to trow around wattage for nothing, obviously they want to take profit of every last bit of watt available and already iwata said that games would consume an avergae of 45 watts, and average is like getting an scroe of 6/10 so the maxium for games could be somwhere  between 45 and 50 watts or so and the rest of the 13.5 watts more or less  would go for the usb ports, sdhc port and the disc drive

and don forget about geras of war for 360 that consumed 186 watts even without the 3 usb ports and the power suply was 203 watts