Other than the RAM, everything you just said was a complete total load of BS.  The 360's GPU is 500Mhz clocked, it's processor is 3.2Ghz clocked.  The GC's is GPU is clocked at 162 Mhz, it's CPU at 485 Mhz.  So yeah, 5 is a pretty accurate description, as that would far surpass the GPU and not be too far off the CPU.  Yes, power wise it's not too innacurate a description to say the Wii is 2 GC's ductaped together, but that's obviously not the focus of the game system, and a pointless cheap shot.

My apologies for not remembering the Ram off the top of my head and making that comment. Also, you could complain "OMG, 6 mini discs is only 12 Gigs, 1 Blue Ray is 30 GIGS LOL LOZER!". But that would be silly! Much like my comparison.

Although I now propose all new suggested Systems be measured by how many GameCubes it would take to equal their power.

rofl

There is also the: how do you use all that power effectivelly? If I am not mistaken the PSX had a 60 Mhz processor and could run games that my 366 computer at the time couldnt. The Resident Evil for PC run at the amazing rate of 5 FPS. It took 5 minutes for the intro at the mansion lobby to end. Half Life 2 ran perfectly on my 2.8 Ghz, 512 ram PC (and really crappy video card). That game would kill the Xbox processor on the high settings. Bungie ported Halo on PC and I couldnt run it on on anything other than low without FPS fetting below 10. After I upgraded to 1 gb ram and a Radeon 9600 I could run it on high. Still it doesnt make sense for me. Why Quake 4 for 360 is considered a slideshow while it runs on my PC on High (with Tweaks)? There is no way my PC has more processing power than a 360. People that see Wii as gamecube 1.8 are the linear thinking types. They just take into account max processing speed and not the tweaks some well designed systems or good softwares can make (like the guys that made Half Life 2).

Umm you can't compare the GPU's of the 360 and GC by clockspeed and somehow come up with a conclusion of the processing difference between them or some magic number...  For example the 360's GPU's peak triangle performance is 500 million per second while the GC's is 20.25 million per second...  Every other number of performance favors the 360 by that degree so I don't really understand where you're getting the 5 from...  And no I'm not taking a cheap shot at the Gamecube I'm simply comparing the hardware and the Gamecube and 360's hardware specifications are well known.  In fact I was being kind to the Gamecube considering the memory bandwidth of the 360 is *a lot* higher than the Gamecube's.

Oh and I'm not anti-Nintendo in fact I own a Gamecube and I'm using it right now... As a foot rest since I haven't taken it out of it's box since I moved, lol.  I've also owned an NES and a N64...

 Good suggestion except some people on this board can't count that high.

Legend11, I believe you missed the point.

Although stand back, and take a look at the prettiest Game Cube game, and the prettiest Xbox360 game. Undoubtedly there's a difference. A 25x difference? Are those extra 480 million triangles/sec doing that good a job?

I wish I could comment more insightfully on the Xbox360 yet I've still never played the thing! Minus a boxing demo once.

Ok, My turn.

IGn is getting worse and worse every day. Mario Party 8 review drew the line(even though everyone hated it, but hear me out). it amazed me how much he complained about the graphics. Since when were graphics a focal point of the game. He complained it didn't support 16:9. Sure bad, but I only know one person(who is a rich kid) who owns one(and even he has a 3:4). He also gave out wrong information. Example.
-Bowser isn't a playable character -_-
-Only time there is frame rate dips is when someone uses a Duelo Candy
But the worst

How about a racing game where you don't tilt the Wii remote on its side classic style? Instead, you hold the controller normally and twist your wrist to the left or right to turn. Again - what?
To bad you actually DO hold it like how you said.

But yeah, Wii reviews are always going to bitch about graphics. Expecially IGN

The only people I still trust are X-Play. The reason is they do what everyone else won't. Rate them on Gameplay. I assum most readers are going to buy the game based on gameplay. Graphics are there for 10minutes. The other 9hrs and 50min are left with the gameplay.

As said, trust us, not them. Don't let IGN or Gamespot deside your buys.

Well Nintendo Power gave it a 7.5...

 Haha, good one :)