http://www.gameguru.in/features/2007/23/xbox-vs-wii-a-comparative-analysis/

Very interesting stuff, which comments from two different developers.

It's a good length article, so if you don't feel like going and reading, I've posted some highlights.

"Well, the verdict is that the Wii has more processing speed than the original Xbox and can allocate more memory with its 24 Mib internal programmable memory whereas the original Xbox had only 64 Mib memory to play around with. The problem with the Xbox’s Power P.C setup was the fact that even though it clocked at higher speeds than the G.C. it was far less efficient to work round with, it would take a considerable amount of time and resources to actually understand the working architecture, so a game as fluid and beautiful as Ninja gaiden took a long time in the development room.

"A Wii is technically 1.75 faster than a GameCube. making it easier for developers to understand what they have to work with, this debate applies to the current generation as well even though the PS3 has a really powerful Cell processor but the way the developers are able to milk this power depends on time, F.E.A.R is a classic tale of this epic power struggle. it looks like a horrendous port of the original P.C. and the 360 versions, even Resistance has been tagged as Ps2.5 game rather than being a full fledged PS3 game, second generation PS3 titles like MGS4 and Killzone 2 will perhaps show off the true power of the PS3.

"In a nutshell the X-box may pull off a Twilight princess (hypothetically speaking… no need to butcher me on this) but it will take a longer time to develop, more time equals more money and less profits."

I hate the fact that Nintendo didn't at least make the Wii 5 times better than the Gamecube it could have still been that cheap!

Most analysis I have read about the Wii's hardware is far too simplistic and misses a lot of the "known" gaps in our knowledge of the Wii's hardware. We know that the Wii's processors (Hollywood and Broadway) are based off of the Gamecube's processors (Flipper and Gekko) and are produced at a 90nm process (as compared to the 180nm process of the Gamecube's processors). Now, if this was a simple die-size reduction the Hollywood and Broadway processors would be half the size they currently are; this difference has lead to some educated speculation that the Hollywood and Broadway are more than simply overclocked versions of the Flipper and Gekko.

The speculation around the Broadway suggest it has 512KB of L2 Cache (as compared to 256KB for the Gekko), and upgraded bus to handle the GDDR3 Memory, and (potentially) a few new instructions. The speculation about the Hollywood processor is that it has 8 pixel pipelines (as compared to 4 for the Flipper), each pipeline has 2 texture units (as compared to 1 for the Flipper), and an upgraded TEV unit.

The overall result (if the speculation is true) is that the Broadway processor would have less cache misses (because of larger cache), the cache misses would have less of an impact (because of faster memory access), and may have higher per-cycle performance due to added instructions; essentially, the processor would perform closer to its theoritical maximum while being more predictable. The Hollywood processor would have dramatically improved texture performance and would (potentially) be able to handle more effects.

Now, don't get me wrong, nothing I have suggested would make the Wii perform at a similar level to what we have seen with the PS3/XBox 360. These changes would be reasonable upgrades for Nintendo to make to the hardware to improve performance and make the hardware very easy to work with.

Xbox:s Power PC setup? I can't see why couldn't Xbox being able to process Twiligh Princess, it is a Gamecube game, which is ported to Wii. Maybe gameguru isn't so guru after all?

Very interesting article. Good to see that it seems easy to produce games on the Wii. Maybe that is why we have soo many games announced now and due out before 2007. Thats crazy(or just poor quality)

The article states it would take longer to make Twilight Princess, it never said it couldn't make Twilight Princess on the Xbox.

"In a nutshell the X-box may pull off a Twilight princess (hypothetically speaking… no need to butcher me on this) but it will take a longer time to develop, more time equals more money and less profits."

Yeah, that "Xbox's PowerPC setup" kinda tells me they have no ideia what they're talking about.

The xbox used an Intel 733mhz processor, closer to a celeron but with some P3 features as well, and the 360 uses 3 3.2ghz IBM PowerPC processors, does it not?

The 360, as vanguardian1 states, uses a multicore PowerPC CPU.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/xbox360-2.ars

This isn't common knowledge? IBM made the chips for Wii, 360, and PS3.

Edit:
I see what you mean, KruzeS. In comparing Xbox to the GC, they say the Xbox PowerPC setup.

I believe the GC was rumored to be the easiest to dev on, so it might not be far from the truth that it would take longer to produce the same graphical effects on the Xbox.

Are people still talking about this? 

Anyways the article mentioned at the start of this thread is extremely badly done.  The author makes a lot of wild claims without anything to support them, it reads like a fanboy posting on a forum.