GTAV is not sub hd its 720p and who knows if X is sub hd, or even runs better then GTAV. and you need hd pics to judge graphics i can post small pics of any game  and it will look great by hiding its flaws.

But after releasing and receiving a patch, is 1080p@30 up from 900p@30.  If the PS4 is so powerful, why did the game get scaled to HALF the framerate of the original claim?  I'm sure there's ALL kinds of excuses, but this is the kind of thing that Sony fanboys sweep under the rug.  If this was a Nintendo game: "HAH, Wii U is underpowered, weak, can't even do 60 fps, it's going to get blown away by the PS4/XBox1!!!".  This is the double standard that the console wars need to stop.  If people are going to fight over consoles, fight about it consistently, and honestly.  If anything, fight over the games...

i posted GTAV bullshots to compensate but even then X looks better

Yup, you continue to have nothing to back yourself up, and continue name-calling with no logic whatsoever.  You continue to hide under the pretense that I don't understand, but provide nothing that demonstrates your own.  You're devolving PC gamers right now, we're the types that rely on numbers and figures to measure anything and everything, that's why we spend hours overclocking and benchmarking.

The one who's name calling is you ... I've already covered these topics ages ago so go and dig up some threads instead of asking me to waste time trying to explain for you. If I'm devolving PC gamers and the like then what does make you for doing a worthless analysis that means nothing ? Some PC gamers are smarter than others and those who know something are the ones who get their fix from either toms hardware or anandtech.

Weren't you just complaining about numbers not meaning everything, but now you're using power draw?  All measurements of power draw of all systems have been done AT THE SOCKET, which reduces the accuracy of the representation of the system's overall power (essentially, you're also using numbers not wholly representative of the systems).  People are still GUESSING what the power draw of the GPU is in the Wii U.  Of course, with Nintendo's engineering target of low power and high efficiency, the system utilizes a meager 75 watt power brick, and draw at the socket on NSMBU and other early launch games has been measured around 35 watts during gaming.  What makes it so hard to compare the two is that the PS4 IDLES at 90 watts.  The PS4 takes almost triple the power of the Wii U to just sit at the menu.  However, to address your comparison to the last generation:

I didn't say that numbers mean NOTHING. It's just that your interpretation is simply worthless due to the fact that you have such a limited understanding of how a GPU would work and if you knew the basics then you could have easily come to a simple sentiment. No, there are no guesses as to how much power the system draws, we ALREADY KNOW how much power the SoC itself draws and that's 30 WATTS according to anandtech not counting the memory, flash memory, and the disc drive. 5 for the CPU and 25 for the GPU. Nintendo's engineering is considerably crap for the most part and there's nothing efficient about using a dead ass 10 year old CPU architecture ever since gamecube. Nintendo was NEVER into engineering and they showed it by hiring other professionals such as SGI, IBM, and AMD to design their hardware. Idle power draw means NOTHING and what matters the most is MAX DRAW.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-wii-u-is-the-green-console

Taking less energy means NOTHING and infact it only supports the opposing sides argument of saying that the WII U is underpowered.

And then about the Wii U's power supply: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Wii-U-Memory-Bandwidth-GPU-More-Powerful-Than-We-Thought-62437-p2.html

They only did that to reduce the chances of the power supply blowing a fuse or getting overheated. 

While I take that GamesBlend article with a grain of salt for its lack of proper reference to 1080p games on the Wii U, the power supply numbers check out on a logical level.  If the Wii U has, say, up to 50 watts for games, and the PS4 has up to 150 watts (again, in your favor, I'm raising the PS4's numbers to give your arguments the edge, of which your side still never holds up), then the PS4, BY YOUR POWER DRAW LOGIC, is only three times as powerful as the Wii U.  WHOOO, such a BIG GAP, right?  On a side note unrelated to the argument, something I noticed about the Wii U is that its idle power and gaming power were very close when tested.  This leads me to believe that the Wii U is always engaging the CPU and GPU at a full power state even when not in use (or marginally in use).  That's always bothered me in particular, since that lack of a lower power state goes against their engineering targets for "high efficiency"...

Again this is a FACT that the WII U only uses around 30 watts, just because you have an 80 watt power supply doesn't mean that you will get to draw all of it. It is the components that chooses how much it will draw from the power supply. It is a fact that the PS4 uses around 140 watts according to anandtech. Again this is why your interpretation is worthless ... It is not only power draw that will detemine how powerful a system is, it will be a factor of things such as manufacturing process nodes and newer architectures that will give unmatched efficiency. Hence, why I'm reserved to explain anything because you simply don't understand.

And by the way: https://www.psu.com/a020967/PS4-Xbox-One-Assassins-Creed-IV-is-60fps-at-a-much-higher-resolution-than-current-gen?page=2

It says Tim Browne confirmed 60 fps.

The funny thing is the article that you linked sourced from VG247 which was already debunked ... 

You aren't going to win this, I keep coming with numbers, articles and all you do is devolve yourself into calling BS on everything and saying I don't understand.  I said I'd stop, and yet here I am kicking you while you're down.  I will stop from this point forward, regardless of your response, for your sake.

Coming up with numbers mean nothing if your interpretation is worthless in the end ... Your not hurting anyone especially by the fact that your still ignorant about hardware ...

so...you're mad that they dont have better textures than the PS360 version? something that barely effects gameplay?

you  comparsion is horrible at least post HD pics, you posted small pics that are not even 420p and one was from  cut scene. post some 720p gameplay pics of X.

Wait... So Ubisoft is making one version to be the main one to be ported to the other platforms, right? They port it, say from the 360 to the PS3, and all is fine and dandy... But when they do the same move to the Wii U, a console you believe to be more powerful than the HD twins, the porting process doesn't work as well? 

By your logic, if the PS3, which has a very different CPU and GPU compared to the 360, can handle such lazy porting process of assets, the Wii U should have no problem whatsoever since it's supposedly more powerful than the PS3. 

The one who called BS was you and you simply in the end didn't debunk anything at the end of all this ... Why don't you go listen to JoeTheBro instead to give you an explanation.

PS3 had the same problems back in its early years actually.

It's not a problem any more because after 7 years of practice, porting between PS3/360 has been refined to a science.

But the Wii U porting doesn't have 7 years of dev experience and investment on its side.

PS3 had the same problems back in its early years actually.

It's not a problem any more because after 7 years of practice, porting between PS3/360 has been refined to a science.

But the Wii U porting doesn't have 7 years of dev experience and investment on its side.