Good, now we only need real games that show it.

The argument that the wii u is powerful is a completely failed argument and has no facts that support it on any level.

The reality is;

1. The x-ray shots show a basic chipset on a smallish die size
2. It's using a low cost power hungry 40/45nm fabrication process
3. It takes very little power
4. It's games perform technically to a very low level mainly below 360 and PS3
5. Fanboys are forced into a situation where they make up random technical points and show graphics from non wii u hardware as a demonstration of wii u power in desperation
6. We know the wii u cpu is cpu architecture from the last century hence wii compatbility
7. Nintendo have a philosophy of using outdated cheap hardware ( Lateral Thinking with Withered Technology)
8. It's ram chips are easily seen by examining the circuit board and they are very low performance (12.8GB/s)
9. Not a single game has demonstrated the wii u is powerful
10. A large number of developers have openly criticised the weak hardware and low performance of the console.

Dancing on a mat to control a game seems like motion control to me.  A quick google search shows that the internet agrees with me:

http://www.giantbomb.com/motion-control/3015-474/   

http://www.gamesradar.com/5-failed-attempts-at-motion-controls-and-3d-gaming/

I brought up the Power Pad specifically because it's NOT anything like the Wii-mote or Move.  The Eyetoy, Power Glove, Power Mat, anything else, are nothing like the Wii-mote or the Move.  That's the point.  They're all VERY different controllers.  However, the Move is exactly like the Wii-mote.  Sony released a copy of the Wii-mote after seeing how successful it was.  Why is that hard for you to accept? 

Can we stop these threads, please? >_<'

That makes no sense.

Wii U games look fantastic plus its not getting the 3rd party cross-overs anymore anyways.

The only reason to buy Wii U is if you want its exclusives and those have great graphics.

dont see what you mean by outdated

* wii u can handle thing like multithreading rednerig and compute shaders, these are features only found in shader model 5 hardware

* wii u has tremendous bandwidth according to shinen and renesas already said that wii u uses bst edram technologies from nec, if gamecube had like 512bits for 1MB of edram giving like 10.56GB/s at 165mhz, why would wii u new edram made at 40nm insetad of 180nm would struggle having 1024bits(563.2GB/s) or 2048bits(1terabyte/s) per macro block of 4MB ?

do the math dude

go back to the old school

the 176gigaflops is just  obvious troll, if even the ps3 which was more powerful than xbox 360 had the worse version of bayonetta at half the framerate and even thoug the system was out there for years and having more optimized engine and people were more used to the system, then why would you expect a super new system like wii u do any better with ports(and the ports are working)?

it doesnt mater if the new system is more efficient or advanced, you cant do micracles with 176gigaflops when you are doing a quick port from 360 since the engines are not tailored or optimized for wiiu, the developers are not used with the new harwdare an even less putting any effort on the ports and also you negate the new charateristics of the harwdare when doing a port, so no, its impossible, thed  only way it would work at 176gigaflps is if the games were ground up games and the developers were more used with the system using a more optimized engine, and thats not the cse, in fact use old engines like unreal engine 2.5 and still the ports on wiiu match the 360 version or some times are better even being lazy

even the ps4 struggles to do 1080p 60fps on games like assesins creed 4 despite being like 7.5 more powerful than 360, having no edram to deal with just gddr5 main ram and using x86, and it cannot do something that requires just about 3x the power of 360 and has 7.5x

wiiu power is about 400gigaflos to 500gigaflops, its obvious and  the die size of the gpu its telling you that, and obviouly the edram bandwidth has to be like 563.2GB/s or a terabyte for shinen to be able to stor 1080p framebuffer with just 16MB of edram on wii u when with 360 you need 10MB of edram for just the 720p framebuffer

A reasonable and realistic comparison can't be made because we know virtually nothing about Expresso or Latte. They're completely new chips and we don't have much of a clue about them.

All we know is that Expresso is a three core PowerPC based chip clocked at 1.2GHz with 3MB of cache and full access to Latte's 32MB of cache. We know it uses out-of-order execution and has a ridiculously short 4 stage pipeline (compared to the 17 stages that the PS4 CPU has). That's it. Everything else is supposition.

Expresso (and the rest of the hardware according to Nintendo themselves) was designed with efficiency in mind.

The Wii U should be able to handle anything that the Xbox One can handle, albeit with concessions after being scaled down.

Super Mario 3D World, Bayonetta 2, X, Mario Kart 8 have shown that the power of the Wii U lies somewhere between the PS3 and Xbox One. Like I said before we'll get more of an idea how it compares to the PS4 and One on a level playing field (ie with a third party developer actually putting equal effort into all 3 SKUs) when Project CARS is released.

I don't agree.

If you want to use the hardware fully, you would have to start by making sure the GPU shaders and CPU cores are constantly executing. Even a CPU core constantly executing something is not exercising all of the physical pathways: typical sequences of instructions will not consume nearly as much power as complex math calculations or even special instructions designed for thermal testing. Also, to use the hardware fully, you'd want to exercise every ancillary piece of hardware. Honestly you can't use everything 100%, e.g. if you are using huge amounts of RAM then the CPU will spend a lot of time waiting for the memory cache.

In practice, most games will struggle to use more than 1 CPU core effectively. And some will be crippled by crap languages like C# / Java.

Well, it's mostly subjective if Wii U games do look fantastic or not. From a technical standpoint, they don't. Art Style is another beast. 

What I wanted to say is, if you're really up all night just because of dem grfxxx, the Wii U probably isn't a good choice as your only console. Because the simple fact remains that it will get you the least impressive graphics of Gen 8. It's like discussing how the PS4 would theoretically be able to 1 up PC graphics or something. You can tlk about that all day, but it simply won't happen. So if you're a graphics whore, PC is the way to go. If you want a decent upgrade to PS360, PS4 and Xbox One are for you. If you're ok with PS360 graphics, Wii U is ok. And if gameplay is your holy grail and everything else isn't so important? Then every platform is a good choice as they all have good games. In that case you just have to look for the exclusives you like the most. 

But when you even think about making a thread like this, you care about graphics way too much to go Wii U only. The graphics may be nice and all, but just not anything near top notch. It doesn't help that the Wii U would be better than PS4 if it had this and that. If the PS4 had 8 Highend GPUs and 128 TB RAM, it would tear every Gamer PC on the planet apart. But it doesn't. Face the truth, ask yourself what is important to you. It's not a bad thing if graphics are important for you and it also isn't if they are not. It's all up to your personal taste and you just have to figure out yourself what you like the most. Don't lie to yourself because of some console wars or because you like the logo of a manufacturer so much. Just get what you have the most fun with. Who knows, might even be an Ouya. Did you know that the Ouya would be faster than the PS4 if it had stronger hardware?

Oh gosh, that old hybrid claim... That is just not accurate. It is correct that modern CISC CPUs (99% being x86) implement many technologies associated with RISC but that still does not make them hybrid or RISC. They are still CISC. This is why pretty much all other modern CPU architectures are RISC, and the only "odd man" is x86. However, intel has many other advantages that the relative inefficiency in the ISA is well hidden and usually only a tiny reduction in efficiency, which is mostly due to the "years of baggage" rather than the pure CISC architecture. ARM, to my delight, has been doing everything in a much more efficient way (in terms of ISA), and they have cleaned up the set even further with the 64 bit implementation as well.

For a better understanding the concept of CISC vs RISC, see this article :

http://www.realworldtech.com/risc-vs-cisc/

Quote:

"The primary fallacy of the “RISC and CISC have converged” school of thought is to ignore the distinction between an instruction set architecture (ISA) and the internal microarchitecture of an actual processor implementation."