This is the first I've heard anyone make that kind of statement. I mean, outside the clueless youtube vagrants (which I don't associate you with). Especially compared to the XBOX. I think polygon wise, they all looked with in range of each other. It was mostly texture and other graphical effects that looked better on the other two consoles. Maybe in rather useless numbers/specs (non real world numbers). I specifically remember GC's polygon numbers being reported well below PS2s, and yet the games (release and otherwise) always looked much better (resolution, textures details, texture colors, GFX, etc). If there was a multiconsole port of a game, I almost always bought the GC over the PS2 one because of this (having a 53" HD set in your face via component back then, really showed off the difference. Plus, there were more progressive output games on the GC VS the PS2 - which also made a noticeable step in video quality difference for motion). Could be my memory, but I seem to remember more PS2 ports of multiconsole game versions, having a little bit more slow down than the other ports. It wasn't across the board difference (number of games), but it was noticeable enough.I realize that one processor can outperform another regardless of the bit-width. Nonetheless, the consensus between the three systems above was that the PS2 CPU outperformed the other two in polygon generation and game related performance.
We're off topic, right? ;>_>