do you know arcania ? Its a ps3 game ported to ps4. It doesnt even have a real open world, but struggling to get 10980p60fps. Its about 40-50 fps on ps4..

Well firstly obviously Trine 2 runs fine on ps3 and 360 just at a lower resolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4ccoKg3G0s

However graphically Rayman Legends is as good surely and that game runs at 1080p 60fps on all three consoles ps3, 360 and wii u with no slowdown.

I'm not sure you fully understand memory bandwidth. If you have a 2GB of memory and a bandwidth of 12.8gb/s (gigabits) thats makes 1.6 gigaBytes per second. so takes 1.25 seconds to write to its whole memory. Where as the  360 would take 0.2 seconds and the ps3 0.1 seconds for cpu memory and 0.08 seconds for gpu but it has two channels so is written concurrently so 0.1 seconds is the time. Clearly both wii u and 360 have a faster pool of eDRAM but you seem to be ignoring that low bandwidth is shared by a larger pool of main memory. wii u memory bandwidth is very, very low. 

The two big issues for wii u are cpu performance and memory banwidth. Some of the issues seen in wii u with slowdown may not just be cpu related but also memory bandwidth.

Many games are cut down compared to ps3 and 360 versions, some are even lower resolution (sonic transformed), others have missing graphic detail (darksiders II plus others), most have inferior frame rates and when I say inferior I don't mean 1 or 2 frames I mean often 10s of frames. Even games like Need for speed most wanted which is one of the few games with enhanced visuals (some of the improved textures from the pc version) the game doesn't play as well because Nintendo didn't fit analogue triggers and more importantly online racing has a cut down number of players (6 on wii u compared to 8 I think on ps3/360). So even for that game the cpu issue rears its head. 

The wii us is a perfectly fine console but when people describe it as more powerful than ps3 and 360 it is really annoying because on so many levels it simply isn't and for almost every game that is on all three consoles the wii u is the weakest version. I just find it really annoying to keep reading that rubbish on various forums. Both 360 and PS3 have a greater claim on being higher performance than wii u. Both have a range of technically more impressive games than wii u by a large margin. The games written for the ground up for ps3 with the cell operating at full capacity (many early multiformat games didn't even utilise the additional cell processors) it looks amazing. Jaw dropping visuals. Same for 360 it has some very impressive exclusive games perhaps not quite as impressive as the ps3 exclusives but it benefits from generally better multiformat games. 

I own two wii u consoles I'm not speaking from ignorance but the reality of seeing all these consoles in action.

Trine 2 on PS3/360 is not just lower resolution than on Wii U; it also has lower res textures, worse AA, worse effects. 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-trine-2-face-off

And frankly you'd better get used to Wii U being described as more powerful than PS3 and 360, because it is.

I've already shown you quotes from actual developers who've worked with the hardware saying that (A) it's more capable than PS3/360 and (B) that main RAM bandwidth is not the problem you're trying to make out that it is.

Hmm for some reason I thought the wii u version of Trine 2 was 1080p but like 360 and PS3 it is 720p at 30fps and this is for a game with low cpu requirements.  

I only have to get used to it here or other places where nintendo fanboys post. It's pretty commonly perceived as sub 360 and PS3 in many other places hence probably the very low sales the wii u receives. I think its a standing joke on many sites where people post images of what the wii u version of new games would look like despite no wii u version planned and its usually images of Atari VCS titles of a similar genre or images of other very retro hardware games. Only someone with strong bias would believe a console was more powerful than other consoles despite those consoles having superior versions of the same games most of the time.

A quote from one software developer is no substitute for real world results on how a console actually performs especially when in fact there are other developers that have expressed negative views on the performance of wii u hardware anyway.

My point about memory bandwidth is not that it's the problem, my point is that is all the cpu and gpu require. You have 32MB for the frame buffer and a few other values but the gpu and cpu only need that bandwidth which clearly indicates their low performance. I'm making the point about just how low spec the cpu is and even the gpu is not performing brilliantly because whatever they do they can do it with 12.8gb/s to 2GB of memory.

It's only "percieved as sub PS3/360" on some sites because there are more PS/Xbox fans on those sites, who tend to have a negative attitude towards Wii U.

I don't need a bias to conclude that a system with a modern GPU, more than twice as much RAM, and more than three times as much eDRAM is more capable. It's not more powerful in every way, but overall, you can do more with it.  Low priority ports designed for a different architecture, and where the devs had 6-7 years more experience on PS3/360, say more about the quality of the porting than the hardware's full capabilities.

And the GPU is not limited to 12.8 GB/s because it has 32MB of high speed memory embedded into the chip itself, not just for the framebuffer, which doesn't need anywhere near 32MB, but for any data that needs higher bandwidth access.

It needs more third party games, not better graphics or resolution.

No, it just needed to ditch the gamepad and compete in price with ps3.

And yet, most early (and not so early) multiplat versions in 7th gen were better on 360 than on PS3, and we all know PS3 has more muscle.

WiiU has weak CPU, but somewhat better GPU (I'm leaning toward 160:8:8 setup, ever since that thread on GAF back in Nov 13 about 192 threads and 32 ALUs for GPU one dev disclosed), so depending on the game it can pull more or less compared to PS360, but overall, considering most games are GPU bound, it's fair to say that is, overall, somewhat stronger than them.

Though I get where you're coming from, there are some people around here that still believe that WiiU is much stronger than it is, and some (name won't be mentiond) were downright crazy about it. Unforrtunatelly, unless some dev who has experience with both WiiU and PS360 comes out and spell it out for us, I doubt we'll know much more....Tachi, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. ;)

They would need third party support which pushes systems not just exclusives. Not many would by a system that might not get many games. Xbox and Playstation seem to do it for quality and games and Nintendo only has mario which is good but not enough.

That's the trouble with any fans of a certain console they end up defending their console of choice.  Between both camps often is where the truth can be found because you can only exaggerate so much about the performance of your console of choice before you look ridiculous and that applies to both sides. If you cut away the excuses, lazy devs etc and just look at the evidence you'll get a lot closer to the truth. It's a bit like religion all sorts of people have their own truth but the real evidence is in the fossil record, genetics and looking out into space. That evidence is always there whether people want to believe it or not.