Of everything said in this thread, this is what I agree/care about the most. All graphics these days are now "amazing" - its all about a good developer putting a lot of time into a game, rather than having funkier hardware to drive.

What mattes is what developers can get out of the Wii (and from the looks of it - its going to be a LOT), not some pissing match between imaginary "performance" stats between the Wii (a current-gen console, that is selling well) and the Xbox (an obsolete console, that no one is supporting).

 There should not even be a comparison between the 2.  I enjoy the things that PS3, 360, and new PCs can do.  I appreciate what art design can do (Okami, Odin Sphere, Ico, etc), but the more powerful the system the more you can do.

So yeh, there was a question put out to people saying xbox is more powerful than wii to post a picture of the best xbox title you can find (graphics-wise) .. i haven't seen any pictures yet (from xbox) while i have we have seen plenty of the wii.. so.. where are all of these games that have better graphics than wii?

This is how I view them: 1. Atari 2600 2. Mattel Intellivision 3. Coleco Colecovision 4. Atari 5200 5. Atari 7800 6. Nintendo Entertainment System 7. Sega Master System 8. Sega Genesis 9. Super Nintendo Entertainment System 10. Atari Jaguar 11. Sony Playstation 12. Sega Saturn 13. Nintendo 64 14. Sega Dreamcast 15. Sony Playstation 2 16. Nintendo Gamecube 17. Microsoft Xbox 18. Nintendo Wii 19. Microsoft Xbox 360 20. Sony Playstation 3 That list may be "fact," partially "opinion," or partially "false."

Ya know, sometimes I wonder if the Dreamcast was more powerful than the PS2. :) I don't wanna debate it though (because I honestly don't care), just so I don't start anything unnecessary. ^_^

Sony Playstation 2 is more equal to the Sega Dreamcast than it is to the Nintendo Gamecube. Nintendo Gamecube is more equal to the Microsoft Xbox than it is to the Sony Playstation 2. Unfortunately, the Sega Dreamcast is slightly weaker than the Sony Playstation 2. However, some games on the Sega Dreamcast are graphically superior to some games on the Microsoft Xbox.

I just wanted to expand on this from the information I could find online and combine this with "reasonable" speculation ...

The Gekko processor was built using a 180nm process and had a die size of 43 mm² and the Broadway processor is built using a 90nm process and has a die size of 18.9 mm². If you were to produce the Gekko using a 90nm process you would expect the processor to have a die size in the 11 mm² range so the Broadway processor is (roughly) 1.5 times as large as you would expect it to be if it was simply the Gekko processor. The most likely improvement to the processor (which would increase its size) would be to boost the L2 cache from 256KB to 512KB which would (hypothetically speaking) increase its performance dramatically because you would have far less cache misses. Even with this increased cache you would expect the processor to be in the 16 mm² to 17 mm² range, and it is likely that the processor has recieved further upgrades.

The Flipper was bult using a 180nm process and had a die size of 106 mm² and the Hollywood processor was built using a 90nm process and has a die size of 72 mm². Once again, one would expect the Hollywood processor to be in the 30 mm² range if it was simply the Flipper processor produced using a 90nm process. The size difference on the GPU is quite dramatic and indicates some massive changes on the processor.