I happen to have that college degree, could you find a link please?

@Kwaad,

To say the PS3 is 16x more powerful than the PS2 is so missleading.  I doubt you even realise why it is missleading since I think you are probably just restating things you have heard before.  There is a lot more to a computer than just the processor, if the processor is 16x more powerful it does not mean that memory can keep up, and it doesn't mean that the CPU power is even needed for what its doing.  The same is true of GPU's, there is a lot more than just clock speed and memory speed going on even if those are the major numbers people look at.  Bottlenecks exist everywhere in a computer system and even if one piece of hardware is capable of running a hundred billion times faster it doesn't mean the rest of the computer will be able to keep up.

Aside from that, clock speed on a processor is about as worthless as tits on a board. It tells you absolutely nothing by itself.  Rocketpig was about to go into that but he refrained realizing it would be lost on most people here. 

Um... You're wrong. The GCN had a 480mhz chip. The Wii has roughly a 750mhz chip based on the same architecture. It also uses a slightly higher-clocked GPU based on the same chip the GCN used. These are also RISC chips.

The PS2 was around 250mhz and was an ARM processor.

The Xbox was a 730mhz or so CISC Intel chip.

So, that tells me that in CPU terms, the Wii is more powerful than the Xbox but its GPU is inferior. They're probably close to a wash with a possible slight advantage to the Wii.

EVEN if the Wii had a 2ghz chip (which it doesn't), it still couldn't run 360 or PS3 games. It has far too little RAM, that "2ghz" chip you theorize would STILL be single-core, and its GPU is completely incapable of running half the textures and effects of the PS3s or 360s chips.

BTW, you're basing the scalability of the Intel P4 to an architecture formed by AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola) nearly 15 years ago. Motorola gave up their chip division a long time ago and IBM stopped paying attention to the G4 a half decade ago while Intel was scaling the P4 because it was their main consumer chip line. Your arguments don't make any sense.

That made no sense at all. And I mean at all!

My CPU runs at ~2.18Ghz, while my old Processor ran at 2.8Ghz. However my new processor is roughly 4x faster! 

This is a stupid thread.

1/ You obviously can't put native PS3/360 code on a Wii.

2/ Any game can be redesigned/reworked such that it would work on the Wii.

3/ The only question is whether the gameplay is impacted badly enough, that the game becomes either unplayable - or changes so such, that the game is completely different.

...

GoW on a Wii --> check

Uncharted on a Wii --> check

Heavenly Sword on a Wii --> check

Killzone 2 on a Wii --> check

...

The game would have to be designed around the very heavy use of physics (and the physics would have to be essential to the game) for the game to be really hard to port. The NaturalMotion stuff in GTA4 looks pretty essential to the game- and may require a lot of CPU (more than the Wii can handle).

...

(whether the game ends up sucking - is another - subjective - question. Hell, the original game may suck, so porting it may not make it any better).

OT, but I always love it when sites watermark an image that didn't originate on their site.

there is really one thing that intrests me, i would like to know when the human eye can't tell a diffrence between graphics anymore, i mean, would we notice a diffrence in graphics in a game if we compared ps3 and ps2? of course we do, but is there a possibilty that a ps3 that is only 7 times faster then ps2, is acctually equal to the 14 times faster ps3 to a human eye?

there is still great graphic....i think it would be like comparing resident evil4 on gamecube, and ps2, there is a diffrence, a tiny, tiny diffrence in the graphics, but it's almost invisible to the eye.... just my thoughts, nothing to yell at me about:P
i just dont think that graphics will be a problem next generation. i belive that when we've reached a certain point in developing, the eye will no longer tell the diffrence between the games, no matter if if the console is 100 times stronger than ps2, or even a 1000 times stronger.
i could be wrong though, and i count on you to tell me if am :)

 This is a pretty complex question, there is a resolution where higher pixel density is no longer helpful but thats only part of the picture.  Frame rate becomes an issue also.  The real question is what frame rate is required to make it look fluid? And the answer depends heavily on wether the game has blurring effects for fast moving objects since blurring gives the impression of fluidity to the eye. There are a ton of other things you can do to improve fluidity without improving frame rate but I am not sure what you would need for frame rate to make it irelevant or that there is such a point.  

 I agree with that. PCs have to run on a variety of settings, that's why PC games have options to recude the resolution/texture/detail level etc. to make sure it runs on lower specced machines (that's why I don;t get the arguements: "My PC is so powerful it can run Crysis" when "My PC is so powerful it can run Crysis at full graphics settings" would be a better arguement. Whereas with consoles, you don't need to worry about the possible variety of hardware, so the devs can spend more time making sure it works optimally on that hardware, rather than spending less time making sure it works on a variety of processors/GPUs etc. at least that's my understanding of it. So IMO, no, it would be very hard. Even if the graphics were dumbed down, reducing the amount of things on screen, physics, AI etc, may mean that the game isn't the game it oriinally was. Can you imagine GTA with 3 cars and 6 pedestrians on screen at anyone time? Of course that's an exagguration, but hopefully you get my point.

It's amusing for me that everyone comes and throws some random specs of consoles hardwares... most of them wrong... most of them pulled out from somewhere... most of them not even knowing what the tech specs mean... and stating all of them as facts... sheesh >_>

For the topic question, I say yes. Games from PS3 Xbox 360 are quite possible on the Wii... but with lot of differences.

1st: Resolution. Nintendo were no idiots to lock the Wii's GPU to 640x480. They knew they had to keep a relatively slow clock to keep shuch a compact form factor, and keep the internal components healthy. Resolution gives one of the biggest performance impacts on GPUs. 1920x1080 is a lot more for a GPU than 640x480. So with a lower resolution, you have free GPU for other things. Oh, and with lower resolution you don't need that 16x Anisotropic Filtering, because its no use.

2nd: Textures. Why would you need 2048x2048 textures when you have a screen of 640x480? You really will not notice the lower resolution of the textures just because of the lower resolution of the screen.

3rd: VRAM. Wii, just like Xbox 360 and PS3, has a 'mediocre' 128-bit memory interface to their GDDR3 video memory... with an unkown speed. AMD could just have thrown there a 1000 Mhz-effective VRAM without increasing the heat that much... and still, by considering the 1st and 2nd points, how much VRAM would you need?

4th: Storage: Ok, we just don't have those ultra-high resolution textures there... why would we need those Blurays and HD-DVD's?

So, the only thing the hypothetical Wii-ports would need to be toned down a lot, would be physics and AI. When you compare the 360's and PS3's CPUs to the humble Wii's... hell, you have a big difference there. But anyway... how importante is physics for the other console's games? ***cough cough*** Gran Turismo HD *** cough cough***

:P