Xenoblade has a bigger area rendered at a given time than skyrim while having much better graphics (polygons, textures,everything else). I don't know what you're trying to say with that "population" comparison, since XCX is full of things on every area. Smash is certainly more demanding than skyrim, with its 1080p 60fps and non blurry/low polygon characters.

Bayonetta 2 IS 60fps, xenoblade is clearly focusing on graphics and draw distance instead of 60fps and Wind Waker HD is 30 fps on wii u because the original game was designed that way. An increase to 60 would probably change the physics. For example, the original kingdom hearts when run on an emulator at 60fps makes objects fall twice as fast, as if doubling the fps increased the gravity.

The fact you aren't accepting is that Wii U games that aren't lazy ports/ports from lower platfroms consistently run at 720p 60fps with much better graphics than ps360 or 1080p 60fps with slightly better graphics than ps360. That's twice the average framerate and three times the average resolution (640p) for those two last gen consoles. Since ps360 had 200 gflops gpus, that easily puts wii u in the range of 600 gflops.

Their opinion is the popular one you keep citing. The 170 - 350 gflop estimate comes from the collection of articles found in that post. 

And even they say;

It it worth noting at this stage that a large portion of the GPU logic is still unexplained.

Also it's made by EA, and EA doesn't make WiiU games anymore. They really hate the U, with all the discussions they had with Nintendo about the Origin thing.

The 5670 is a 620 GFlop card and I remember it performing much better than my Wii U in a lot of titles. Case in point ME2 and ME3 ran at 60fps (720p, could hit 900p30) while the Wii U port is capped to 30. Looking at youtube that card runs titles like Crysis 2 and Dirt 3 at High up to 1366 x 768 (> 720p) over 30fps. It also runs newer games like Far Cry 4 and Watch Dogs, admittedly at low but 8th gen PC "low" presets look pretty good. The Wii U rarely does that. Claiming that the Wii U has 3x the graphical throughghput of the PS3/360 and nearly half of the X1s is  very generous of you.

The 5670 is a 620 GFlop card and I remember it performing much better than my Wii U in a lot of titles. Case in point ME2 and ME3 ran at 60fps (720p, could hit 900p30) while the Wii U port is capped to 30. Looking at youtube that card runs titles like Crysis 2 and Dirt 3 at High up to 1366 x 768 (> 720p) over 30fps. It also runs newer games like Far Cry 4 and Watch Dogs, admittedly at low but 8th gen PC "low" presets look pretty good. The Wii U rarely does that. Claiming that the Wii U has 3x the graphical throughghput of the PS3/360 and nearly half of the X1s is  very generous of you.

What I meant is what is making their opinion the popular one? Ever wonder why it's percieved that way? That being said there is almost no evidence that supports you're theory of the Wii U GPU being 550 gigaflops. 

The 5670 is a 620 GFlop card and I remember it performing much better than my Wii U in a lot of titles. Case in point ME2 and ME3 ran at 60fps (720p, could hit 900p30) while the Wii U port is capped to 30. Looking at youtube that card runs titles like Crysis 2 and Dirt 3 at High up to 1366 x 768 (> 720p) over 30fps. It also runs newer games like Far Cry 4 and Watch Dogs, admittedly at low but 8th gen PC "low" presets look pretty good. The Wii U rarely does that. Claiming that the Wii U has 3x the graphical throughghput of the PS3/360 and nearly half of the X1s is  very generous of you.

What makes their opinion the popular one? People look for specs and don't care about the context in their comparisons. The people who made this estimate obviously made conditional statements like, if we assume, and there is still we don't know. Then somebody who just wanted to make lists compared what they could find without understanding these conditions.  I never said the Wii U GPU is 550 gigaflops. I said that the Wii U's GPU is based on a card that outputs around 480 gigaflops, and there are just as many estimates with the Wii U's low end being 350 gigaflops and upper end being 550 gigaflops. Somebody scouring the internet will probably average both these views and choose 350 gigaflops. The truth is though, nobody knows what the upper and lower limits of the Wii U's potential is, because the GPU is not that simple. And theoretical performance doesn't always translate to real world performance. This all started because you thought the 350 gigaflop estimate was official, which prove my point. People look for an easy number to quantify things without understanding the context from which that number was found. 

What I meant is what is making their opinion the popular one? Ever wonder why it's percieved that way? That being said there is almost no evidence that supports you're theory of the Wii U GPU being 550 gigaflops. 

Ok so the Wii U being at most is around 550 right? You do realize that still makes it much weaker right. And earlier you said games like Xenoblade were CPU intesive. This is not 2005 games no matter what type these days are almost always GPU intesive. SO games like Xenoblade would benefit from a more powerful GPU then a CPU.