The clockspeed isn't what's holding the WiiU's CPU back.
It's the SIMD's or lack there-of.

Do you have sources from when the developers stated that? I would be interested in reading them. (And hopefully they have a technical analysis.)

As for the GPU and CPU sharing workload, well. Yes and no.
The Playstation 3's Cell processor did "assist" in rendering, but it wasn't anything in the GPU's pipelines, it was utilised mostly for framebuffer effects such as motion blur and morphological anti-aliasing or decompression of textures, which freed up the GPU from doing similar tasks.
The Xbox 360 was different again, thanks to it's more advance GPU, but inferior CPU, the GPU and eSRAM took on those tasks.
On the PC, the GPU also takes on those tasks, despite PC CPU's being 10-20X faster or more.

The WiiU isn't in a similar situation however, feature wise... It far exceeds the Playstation 3 in every conceivable way, matching the Xbox 360 and Playstation 4.
The far better 3dc+ texture compression also means that bandwidth isn't as much of a deciding factor, because it can fit more data per byte transferred over the bus, we aren't just talking texture compression here either, but normal maps, bump maps, you name it is all compressed.

The general consensus is... Whatever the Xbox One and Playstation 4 can do, the WiiU can also do it too, just less of it and at a lower quality.

The fact that the Wii U at the start of it's generation is running lazily ported games from the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3's late generation games is a good sign, have you ever seen a console that was taped out at the start of the generation where games have never improved graphically? Because I sure havent.
And I do know how badly developers/publishers will port games too, I am a PC gamer with limitless performance in comparison to all three anemic machines and yet I suffer the wrath of such things.

Give it a few years before you start to judge the platforms potential.

Kay. Grab one piece of my post, take it out of it's context and disregard everything else I said which also applies.

The PS3 and Xbox 360's CPU's have more in common with an Intel Atom processor.
The Wii U's CPU thanks to the shorter pipelines *and* everything else I stated has more in common with a fully fledge Core based processor.
(Albeit, this point is relatively moot, they have commonalities, but are still very different, but you get the idea.)

The killer in the Wii U's heel is the lack of SIMD's.

Also more cores =/= more performance.
The Cell processor was a poor performer even on release.

A Core i5 4670 which is quad core is faster than an AMD FX 8120 which is an 8 core.
An AMD FX Quad-core running at 4ghz is slower than a Core i5 4670 Quad-Core running at 3ghz.

NO. 200fps physics.

I have both Consoles and killzone while being very boring looks beter then Ryse.

Kay, I was just commenting on what you said about the CPU.

"The killer in the Wii U's heel is the lack of SIMD's"

OK, well that would do it.  Similar problem to the FX really.  Fewer execution units than an i5.

"Also more cores =/= more performance."

Sure, not without context.

Plus you need to factor in the workload.

At general processing the PS3 was inefficient, and hard to optimize.  For a lot of general game code an i7 OoO, better branch prediction, huge caches, etc. would win easily.  For stream processing the PS3 Cell still rivals Haswell CPUs today thanks to high SIMD throughput, programmable async DMA, 128 register files, better SIMD instruction set, predicated branching, etc.  Code developed specifically for that could beat an i7.  But that is a narrow area like image processing, or doing the GPU's job.

Anyway, it seems like we're kind of arguing the same point.

Nah. The Cell was only good when using iterative refinement in floating point.
Game engines use differing types of math depending on the object, the scene and even the types of A.I, it's never a static environment.

A good analogy would be the Cell travelling down a freeway at 50 miles an hour, on the odd occassion it might hit 150 miles an hour. - A Core i7 however would be sitting at 100 miles an hour during the entire trip.
The i7 would reach the finishing line first simply because it can simply sustain it's speed, regardless of road conditions or weather.

As for Stream processing, the little IGP's that Intel and AMD bundle for "free" with CPU's these days, far outclass the PS3, it's a GPU's forte'.

As for SIMD, nothing Cell has touches AVX and AVX2 (Which also has a 256bit register file) which is found in Haswell and Jaguar, besides not all tasks benefit from SIMD instructions simply because they can't be vectorised to well. (This plays into the highway analogy.)
Intel also has the advantage of macro-op fusion.

As for Predicated branching, well. Intel has such functionality in it's advanced branch tree predictor, Intel hasn't been beaten on this front since the Core 2 days.

All in all, Cell was beaten by the Core 2 CPU's when they were released, the sheer amount of transisters aren't there to look pretty and you would be hard pressed to convince anyone that the Cell could beat something like a 6 Core/12 Threaded Core i7 Sandy/Ivy-Bridge-E based processor. (Which in some cases can be beaten by a Haswell Quad.)
There is a reason why Intel can charge $600-$1000 or more for a CPU and get away with it, there is simply nothing, not even in the server space offered by IBM that can touch Intel in sheer performance.

Let's not be too harsh with XBOne, they're tryng hard to make this run at 800p:



   

The XOne is definitely closer to PS4 in terms of power.

IMO they all can look good, if the graphics are done right.

Wait. This isn't a SpurgeonRyan thread?

Noone said that so try to read before you reply okay? thanks

(lets just agree that you didnt read because if you did and called WiiU last gen on purpose thats actually a reason to be banned. Please dont be so "hostile" next time)