It can't be far more capable because it's impossible for a gpu with 2x the power to struggle in most ports of a 240 gflops gpu let alone, a gpu with  3x the power, this has never before been seen on consoles or pc's even with out optimization. 

This is this and that is that.

Because I say so.

Don't agree with me? You're wrong!

Why? Because!

have a question are taking into account loading screens in tomb raider that seperate parts of the world or again prefromance. 

The game objectively has screen tearing and dips in framerate. Again just saying it looks great and nintendo is ignoring the story.

It would be like playing tomb raider on pc on low setting but it having no tear screen tearing, playing at 60 Frames per second, and than arguing there is no difference. The facts are this is a big factor on objectively judging the power.  Your argument is coming from personal 

observation and my is coming from actual perfromance. In tomb raider it hides the problems with developer tricks to hide even more perfromance problems. (i.e screen tearing, loading screens, very linear areas, low framerate, barely any aa). You talk about AI but you can't serious think it was at all impressive. Saying goomba AI is like saying Nintendo only makes mario games. We both know in 3d world there way more enemies in it. 

Lets look at sometimes that are impressive on 3d world.

vsync on.

Good lighting.

cherry were you can have up to 12-16 characters on screen. This would be more of a demand on cpu then tomb raider AI. At 60 fps.

No loading screens in each level.

Seems to be aa on characters.

60 frames per second at all time.

We have things like puppeteer running at 30 fps and no where near the techinal level of 3d world. Saying its subjective isn't going to work when tomb raider is a technical mess.

I'm not saying Wiiu is on the level of Xboxone. But its somewhere inbetween current and last gen.  People who ignore the perfromance of games are confused with techinical differences and simple observation.

The Wii U isn't "far more capable" than a PS3, if it was we'd have clear proof of it. 600 Gflops has no basis in reality, but if some delusional fans want to keep that fantasy, let them. They can dream of playing Final Fantasy XV on their Wii U pad too, but neither is real life.

Honestly X and Bayonetta 2 aren't that far beyond things like Halo 4 or The Last of Us either if at all.

Since the GameCube Nintendo has designed all their hardware to be easy to get near maximum performance from from basically day 1. They really hated having to wrestle with the N64. It's also why 1st gen GCN games hold up very well (ie: Star Wars Rogue Squardron II). That's part of the reason why the Wii U chip is not cheap, Nintendo insists on having very proprietary designs with extremely low power consumption, even if the raw horsepower is nothing special.

The Wii U is moderately more powerful than a PS3 with double the RAM and a more efficient/modern architecture, that's about it. 

3D World has very tiny levels compared to Tomb Raider, you don't have loadings every 2 minutes like in 3D World. It's far from a technical mess. You're obviously looking at it with the same tinted glasses you accuse him of. It has screen tearing, yes. Other than that? I've seen the game run on low settings on PC, and the console versions are nothing like it. They run at a capable 30fps with some fluctuations, with visuals more in-line with the medium PC settings. Quite commendable. Next you mention AI... There's barely any AI in Mario. Only fixed routines that kick off when you get close to the enemies, and in most cases they just rush towards you. Nothing to write about. Multiple marios? Is that serious? They all act the same as each other. They're all mimics. Final Fantasy XIV on PS3 can have more than that at once on-screen, and they're player characters all with their unique move sets... More enemies in 3D World? Sure. But again, nothing to write about. Do you mean by that that they're more diverse? So what? They only load a few select ones per levels. It's not like all the enemies in the game are loaded in the RAM at all time ... ¬_¬

In any case, you approach this matter with the same kind of bias you accused him of.

Ok. Thats your opinion.your opinion isnt fact, even if you think it is. Tomb raider is not a technical mess at all. It holds a solid framerate most of the time. Mario is 60 fps because of its simplicity.

The wiiu wouldnt and couldnt run tombraider with zero improvements at 60 fps. Even if they tried. Why? Tomb raider is a far more demanding game thats just doing more. Mario is focusing all of the wiiu power on nugget sized worlds. There is nothing to argue there. It looks good for what it does. Make tiny levels that are beaten in less than a few minutes.

If it didnt push that game at 60 fps it wouldve been an embarrassment. From a purely technical level, tombraider is far more impressive than mario, especially cobsidering its multiplatform, and mario is exclusively on the u.

I think your judgement is being clouded by your love of nintendo, i used to be the same way. Looking with unclouded vision makes it easier to see the truth...... miniature game boards with 16 goombas isnt that impressive.... theyre tiny. There is no technical achievement here. Pour all of the wiiu resources into the smallest mario levels ever, and of course it will look pretty good, make em big, and they would suffer.

And you saying the tombraider levels were small and linear makes me beleive youve never played it. Small and linear was mario... perhaps you were confused?

You. Are. Not. Objective.

You simply WANT the U to have 600GFlops but have absolutely NO basis to back it up apart from your own desires.

I bet the Wii U GPU could run it 720p 30 fps, but I question whether the CPU in the Wii U could handle everything on screen like the PS4/XB1 8 Core. I think cpu slowdowns. We'll probably never know though.

Further more as someone who actually owned a 620GFLop card (Radeon 5670HD GDDR5) and who currently owns a WiiU I can completely rule that out. Virtually impossible. If it were every 7th gen port would be 900p30 out the box with no "optimisation" required. 900p60 would be true for Nintendos 1st party games, stop making things up Zero.

A DX10 based 4850HD is still more powerful than a DX11 based 5670HD so stop acting like thats magical fairy dust. DX11 features mean nothing if the card cant use them in real time at acceptible performance levels.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The Wii U has anywhere from 350-450 Gigaflops, no where near 600. C'mon now, I love the Wii U as much as anyone, but this is rediculous. You can't just expect every single game to be optimized for your console.