I don't know about you Blue3, but personally, all the graphics we can do today amaze me.  I come from originally playing Atari 2600 when I got into gaming.  The graphics we accomplish today astound me.  And just personally, the last generation of gaming consoles, hit a level of graphics that I just don't care if they get any better.  They are amazing enough as it is.

Let's see. Wii 729Mhz CPU IBM Power PC 24 MB 1T-SRAM internal integrated with graphics system (this type of memory is much better than typical SDRAM) 64 MB GDDR3 SDRAM external for CPU only 3 MB GPU frame buffer 243 MHz ATI GPU Xbox 733 intel mobile celeron 64 MB SDRAM shared with GPU 233 Nvidia GPU I'm sorry. Where it these numbers can you possibly think xbox is more powerful than the Wii. CPU's if you actually think an intel celeron is more powerful that an IBM PowerPC then you should log off and sell your computer. Wii has a lot more memory to be used by either the GPU or the CPU than xbox. Wii's GPU is also more powerful. Show me one game in xbox first 6 months, no first year that looks better than the screen shots already shown for SSB:Brawl.

Honestly, you can have some very impressive games on the Wii depending on how willing (and able) developers are to "Cheat" (by cheat I mean pre-render) ...

I'll teach you a trick that is possible that would mean that even if the Wii was simply as powerful as the Gamecube the extra memory in the Wii would enable certain games to look far better than anything the XBox or Gamecube ever had. Many (if not most) games have very static environments with static lighting which enables lighting to be precalculated. You can (essentially) generate a Z-Buffer for each light ahead of time (so that you can correctly apply shadows from dynamic objects onto the environment) and generate a texture on the object (for each light, and one for no light) which stores "how" the light impacted that object; you'll have a limited number (probably 2 to 4) of lights that you will want to allow to have an impact on an object but this should also allow you to use more advanced lighting techniques (and emulate higher polygonal detail) than the Wii is capable of.

Edit: I should mention the Z-Buffer technique I mentioned is a form of shadow mapping which has been used on both the XBox and Gamecube. It is used (mainly) because it allows for self shadowing which is difficult to do otherwise.

Yes that is correct correct. However, maybe you should try actually READING the thread. The point he was trying to get across is NOT that the Pentium 4 architecture was crappy (it was, but that wasn't his point) or that the pentium 3 architecture was crappy (it wasn't, but again not his point) but that the P3 architecture at the same clockspeed was not as powerful as a G3 at the same clockspeed. Yes the P3 architecture was designed for higher clockspeeds but that is NOT relevant to this discussion, ecause we are comparing the Xbox to the Wii, which have the SAME (well, similar) clockspeeds, but different architectures.

So, while your point is correct, it has no relevance to the topic at hand and you're fighting a straw man.

It's barely more powerful than the Xbox 1, no matter how you spin it.

 That isn't pre-rendering if it's done in real-time graphic, since the definition of pre-rendered graphics is that they are not done in real time.

 Therefore, that is not cheating to do that. In fact, the PS2 could even pull that trick off, as certain games showed. So it's a legit way to get good graphics.

 BTW, the lack of programmable shading on the Wii is more to save power, as the PSP does that as well. However, those can be done through the software, as the PSP does that.

Also, I guess Blizzard doesn't know that the G4 or G5 is faster.  This is for WoW:

 I guess they are wrong to compare a P3 800MHz with a 933MHz G5.  Every other requirement is the same.

They're also comparing Mac OS X to Windows 2000/XP. Windbane, the more posts you make attempting to illustrate that PowerPC is not significantly faster than a Pentium 3 at the same clock speed, the more credibility you keep throwing away.

This goes to show you either simply didn't understand what you read before posting it, or you're just twisting it up to help you make your point: it's a 933Mhz G4 or a G5 (or an Intel), not a 933Mhz G5.

Plus, you're also comparing OSes. Not that it matters, obviously.