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.

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, but 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 than a XBox did. I want to say it has 64M of base RAM, and an additional 24M of VRAM, whereas the GC had 24M of RAM and 16M of VRAM -- but I honestly don't remember clearly. The XBox had 64M of RAM total shared between the CPU and GPU, and likely anywhere from 16-32M of that was typically allocated to the GPU... but that was entirely app dependant.

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 techonology being the main ones).

I remember CNN posting an article about a decade ago about how, before or by 2008, robots would be intelligent enough to threaten mankind. Here's a link:

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9802/18/swiss.robot/

Don't believe everything you read. Heck, Julian Eggbrecht is a designer, not an engineer, even, isn't he?

Bad example my friend, Julian Eggbrecht and Factor 5 helped research the development of the Gamecube and they probably know the system better than Nintendo themselves. Rebel Strke is proof enough since that game still looks awesome with something like 20 million full shaded textured polygons running at a consistant 60 frames per second. Trust him when he says he knows what the Wii can do in relation to the other systems. I actually thought it was pretty funny that you thought that was a fake story....

I remember CNN posting an article about a decade ago about how, before or by 2008, robots would be intelligent enough to threaten mankind. Here's a link:

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9802/18/swiss.robot/

Don't believe everything you read. Heck, Julian Eggbrecht is a designer, not an engineer, even, isn't he?

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.

Bad example my friend, Julian Eggbrecht and Factor 5 helped research the development of the Gamecube and they probably know the system better than Nintendo themselves. Rebel Strke is proof enough since that game still looks awesome with something like 20 million full shaded textured polygons running at a consistant 60 frames per second. Trust him when he says he knows what the Wii can do in relation to the other systems. I actually thought it was pretty funny that you thought that was a fake story....