I forgot about the eyefinity as well. We also have reasources backing that it has some DX11 equivalent functionality from Unity and the Project C.A.R.S. change log(especially that last one that listed the Wii U and the PS4 both using the same DX11 feature). Unless people want to start trying to bin the PS4 as an only DX10 equivalent GPU.
I'm sill interested in the dual graphics engine possibility. Getting higher polygon counts at 2X the frame rate as what was common is nothing to scuff at.
It should naturally have some higher polygon pushing power simply from being 550 Mhz. How it keeps such high numbers in all of the these 60 FPS games, though, is another question. For as long as I can remember, the relationship of polygon count to frame rate was that at 60 FPS, you could only draw half as many as you can at 30. Exactly 1/2. I'm seeing increased geometry at higher frame rate for similar games. Either they are using tessellation extensively, or the GPU can draw more polygon than what it seems at first glance.
That's interesting, but even without looking at technicalities that could corroborate it (chip layout, or performance comparisons of the same title running on both consoles) I don't find it very likely.
Basically, before the bottleneck was either texturing capacity (pipelines and textures per pass) or polygons; we didn't hear about neither this generation, because they weren't the bottlenecks anymore; I know GC and Xbox had 4 pipelines; I don't know how many does Xenos have; similarly we know how many polygons per second a lot of 128 bit games pushed, and suddenly this gen it turned out to be a non-factor.
Polygons have reached the point of diminishing returns; 5 million polygons per second to 10 million was so noticeable before, but today geometry is always complex providing the engine is not crap and artists invested time and resources into it; similarly, texturing is clearly not free, but memory and latency is often the bottleneck more so than internal bandwidth; and fillrate is still a bottleneck that impacts both; and stuff like megatexture is cool, but people forget someone has to do those textures, so it turned into a problem of resources, artistry and talent more so than it is a limitation
Current gen consoles were bottlenecked through hell and back; Wii U supposedly isn't, so even if the theoretically attainable polygons per second are close the end result is very different.
How to say this... 60 frames per second are remarkably hard to get this generation, you have to sacrifice way more than pulling half the polygons you were thinking about pulling; that's why Call of Duty games have gone 880x720 and so many others opt for dynamic framebuffers that output whatever the GPU can give them or simply being sub-720p. They've been basically doing the Halo 2 tradeoff; more texturing and less polygons; because polygons seemed enough, and textures were a better tradeoff to invest in to negate whatever limitations geometry had (normal maps being able to fake volumes and all that)
The issue is fillrate needed to output that, as well as RAM latency and whatever extra steps there are on the pipeline be it tiling on the 360 or actually using RAM for framebuffer purposes on the PS3 (not so rare on the X360 as well, I've been told); if you removed those, you probably could pull the same thing without the tradeoff's being so evident, and it's only natural Wii U can do that and then some; it's also pulling a lot more 1080p without even going into the dynamic framebuffer territory, it's clearly less bottlenecked, and that means it can go closer to the "theoretical" peaks than current gen, even if they happen to be close on paper; 550 Million polygons per second is nothing to sneeze at; thing is I'm quite secure in balparking current gen games to not surpassing the 60 million mark in any circumstance.
games like Killzone3, Uncharted 3 or Motorstorm Apocalypse) and while there is some trade off, is not so prominent as one can believe