So true....8 bit, 16 bit, 32 bit, 64 bit, 128 bit....im not even sure if the PS3 is 256 bit or what....

I think it is safe to say that no Wii game should look worse than God of War, and no casual game having more jagged textures than Kingdom Hearts. That game had smoothly designed characters. Add to that the fact that the Wii is strong enough to run PS2 ported games in its sleep without using much of its power, games with anything lower than high-end PS2 graphics/ game engine is deplorable.

However, there are exceptions like Wii Fit and Wii Sports or even No More Heroes (since they wanted it to look like that).

 First of all that is an assumption that the wii's framebuffer is the same as the gamecubes. Nintendo never released specs on the wii so it's assumed that the wii has the same as the gamecube.  Even if this is true the Hollywood(the wii's gpu) has full access to the gddr3 ram, and it's possible to use that as a framebuffer in the same way the original xbox did. As far as I know the wii has a beter fillrate than the original xbox which produced 720p in some games. 

Actually, that's just the minimum for the Wii. It also has access to 24MB of additional RAM, which can be allocated as developers see fit (as either textures, frames, or main memory).

And the VRAM may also have access to the 64MB of GDDR3 RAM, but even if not, the Wii has a lot more room for a frame buffer than the GC did. If it didn't, RE4 Wii would not be able to have a true widescreen mode. 

The original XBox used Nvidia hardware, which was basically an early, custom version of the GeForce 3. It had primitive shader technology (compared to the PS3 and 360 graphics chips), but it *did* have programmable shaders.

The Wii's graphics chipset is, basically, an overclocked version of the GC's. The GC didn't have programmable shaders, but it did have some "neato" functionality (some unusual z-buffer texture support, amongst other gizmos). The Wii's chipset is, more or less, just a faster version of the GC's. The original XBox's graphics chipset was primitive to the point of, frankly, not being able to do much more than the fixed function pipeline of the GC/Wii (for any serious game, not a demo), but it *was* programmable. It and the Wii are pretty darn close, in terms of raw polygon/texel performance, unless you wrote some real fancy shaders on the XBox, which would be something the GC/Wii couldn't do, but were pretty slow overall (as compared to modern shaders) -- so fancy shading techniques weren't really used much on the XBox, unless the situation called for it.

The Wii's graphics performance suffers primarily from the fact that the Wii doesn't really have much more graphics memory to utilize than a XBox did, but it beats the socks off the GC. I want to say it has 64M of base RAM, and an additional 24M (+3M I think, embedded on the chip?) of VRAM, whereas the GC had 24M of RAM and, I think only 3M of VRAM. The XBox had 64M of RAM total shared between the CPU and GPU, and likely anywhere from 16-24M of that was typically allocated to the GPU... but that was entirely app dependant. In some situations, the XBox GPU would have both fancier shaders AND more memory, but I think that was typically pretty rare. The CPU needs memory too -- and not in small amounts.

In any case, fixed function pipelines can look decent if you're clever with your resource allocation, but it will never be on par with the X360 or PS3, for a variety of reasons (clock, memory, and shader technology being the main ones).  The Wii's GPU (and CPU, really), is on par with the best of the last-gen, no matter how you look at it.  Its a little better than the XBox, IMO, but certainly not "2x" better.... "1.5x" better would be the furthest I would take that analogy.

Why do people keep thinking that the wii is not much more powerful than the Xbox Phat? It had a 733mhz 32bit celeron based processor. The wii doesn't have confirmed specs, and even at it's speculated "729mhz", it is still faster than the xbox processor.

But...The number on that xbox processor is bigger., you may say. Well, in fact, numbers do not matter. The powerpc architecture is much more efficient than the celeron process. Remember how apple used to brag about how much faster their powerpc computers were compared to all the intel made crap? 

As an example, lets use computers as an example. I have a 2004 buit Pentium 4 2.8hz computer running on Windows XP. My brother has a 2.3ghz Intel core dual 2 that he bought last year, which was running on vista, the slowest OS ever made. Yet my brother's computer runs faster. Why? Even though vista is bugging down the system it still outperforms as "faster" processor. Bigger is not always better, and in this case it applies. Processor cache and system memory also has alot to do with how well the cpu performs. 

Conclution: The wii is capable of more than the Xbox. The wii can do 720p, as a result. However, the 720p game cannot be very intensive, so something like SF4 on the wii could be 720p.  

All those numbers when comparing the Wii with the Xbox 1 don't really mean anything since the Wii is *supposed* to be developed completely differently than the other systems due to it's unique architecture (which Third Parties don't seem to know or care or use)

Read this: http://revoeyes.blogspot.com/2007/09/wii-can-do-lot-more-graphically-factor.html

Another Factor 5 interview but this time the Wii is being compared to the PS3. Remember that raw numbers don't mean anything; it's the performance and the resulting look of the game that are the key and Julian from Factor 5 explains why this is true for the Wii and why games can look almost as good as PS3 in SD.

 The Wii's CPU is certainly much faster than a Pentium-III of similar clockrate (The P3 is a pretty inefficient architecture, as the above poster implies) -- but the discussion was about the GPU and the graphics capabilities of the Wii, which the CPU differences, between the XBox and the Wii, doesn't have a huge impact on.

...and although the Wii's GPU probably has the fillrate to do 720p (albeit not too well), the Wii itself cannot output a 720p signal.  So... no game will ever be 720p on the Wii.  Sorry.

The wii has 24 mb of internal 1T-Ram, 64 mb of GDDR3, and assumed to have 3mb of edram. The xbox has 64mb of  sd-ddr ram. Now that is already more ram than the original xbox by a decent amount. Take in consideration that the wii allows up to 8x more textures due to compression, and the original xbox only allowed for 6x, the ram of the wii being alot faster with 3 times less latency, and you will see that it trumps the original xbox in this area. While not as much as the ps360, the wii still is significantly upgraded from the xbox in the area of ram. The wii has twice as more pipelines and texuring units. While some say that the Wii isn't capable of some shaders  they forget that the TEV in the wii is programmable, and is capable of doing anything that the xbox's gpu could. Actually it's been said many times in the case of the gamecube. While broadway and the original xbox's cpu are about the same in clock speed. Broadway is far more efficient than the xbox's cpu. The xbox's cpu was comparable to a celeron while the broadway is supposedly comparable to the powerpc 750CL. Broadway also has almost twice as fast of a fsb, and cache. So I'm going to stick with my stance and say the wii is capable of everything the xbox is capable of , but does it better. Even the gamecube was capable of everything the xbox was. The wii doesn't compare to the xbox 360 or ps3 though.