That still doesn't proove how in my other post I said that the GC uses triangles/sec in game, and the ps2/xbox did it in a non in game environment. This means that the GC compesated for other things such as lighting,textures,and shaders to produce this polygon count and the others didn't. I could see the gc being around 100triangles/sec if it wasn't calculated in an in game environment. 

of course not, its just that developers want to save money, and make the graphics for the ps2 and port them on to the wii

It is amazing that there are people like Daddo Splat that are such PS2 fanboys that even after years they refuse to accept the PS2 was the weakest console last generation.

I mean FFS he even kills his own argument with the quotes he uses! Blind fanboyism at it's highest.

''PS2
3D CG Geometric transformation(VU0+VU1 parallel): 66 million polygons per second
Gamecube
Fixed-function hardware transform and lighting (T&L). 12+ million polygons/s in-game.[''
Er duh notice the gamecube features ''in-game'' at the end? Oh right no you were just looking at numbers and assuming you knew something.

You only need to look at the fact that multiplatform games looked better on the gamecube. That it's system exclusives looked better than those on the PS2 etc etc. Or hey even look at the system specs.

Any modern game can be ported across any platform... as long as you're willing to downgrade sufficiently for it to work on a less capable system. This was very much the philosophy that drove the first console-to-handheld franchise ports. But anything resembling a direct port of a Wii game to PS2 would simply not work out well; the PS2's DVD-ROM drive is considerably slower than the Wii's optical drive, The PS2's processor isn't even half as powerful, and its RAM isn't sufficient or fast enough to work the way a Wii game would require it to for a direct port.

frames per second Interlace =30fps output on a tv progressive scan equals 60 fps thats outputted to the monitor!

I did agree the gamecube graphics looked better that would be the same for the 360 over the PS3 because Ati had better on board features shaders ect. over the PS2 the 360 has on board HDR!  PS3 does it thru software!

But on the raw polygon count everyone here ask's me for where I get my info from I dont want to be a dick but a link to the in game real world ploygon count comparison would be neat to see!

And I am wondering will the Wii someday become the most powerful system this generation also!

Like I said Resident evil looked better in GC I understood that to be the Gc did 4x aa and so did the xbox but the ps2 didnt hence jaggies!

Also Im not a PS2 whore if proven wrong will gladly admit it to me it doesnt matter! I just dont believe a company who can advertise a higher polygon count and doesnt and also produce's the cheapest system saying overall power doesnt matter! when in fact they do have the second most powerful machine out is bad marketing! no wonder it only sold 20 million units! WW.

Your link, there is a nice comparision, lots of pics and videos, there is a a gap between the two versions, polygon count, resolution, textures, and effects (The PS2 lack of some, like the lava room in the castle, light in some areas, water effect)... the GC was indeed more powerfull in game than the PS2... (The better comp is now lost, that one showed the big gap just in the first level)

http://www.gameswelike.com/web/re/RE%20Comp.htm

And a youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qz0LbKpZtI

The PS2 can handle third party games atm. I imagine when third partys properly take advantage of Wii's extra power PS2 won't handle it.

All that shows is that the disk space for GC games was smaller than PS2 games.  When it comes to raw processing power, the GC could easily handle any of those--it would just be spread out to an annoying number of disks.

 First of all if you read any of the post you would know that the GC would have a polygon count on par or higher than the ps2. Next you are ignoring textures, shaders, and framerate. The maximum graphical performance isn't based all of of polygon count. The GC produced better graphics, with less jaggies, at a higher framerate, with faster load times. So I don't know where you get the idea that the Ps2 is more powerful than the Gamecube. 

Now if we look at this at a technical way such as the performance of their processors.  You would come up with the conclusion that both the GCs gpu , and cpu is far more efficients. It's ram has more bandwidth, and there is more of it, helping with textures lighting and shading. So please look at the overall performance on both before wrongfully making a statement.