@BraLoD 

Virtual Boy is more capable than an NES, and probably more capable than an SNES as well. The lack of colors is admittedly a big problem.

Game Boy Advance is on par with SNES, better in several key ways but worse in a few.

I would probably put DSi above N64, but not DS. The only reason a lot of DS games look better than N64 is because devs were more used to polygons by the time DS came out and DS has a small screen. N64 supports higher resolutions than DS, but is played on a TV. 

Wii is a little above Xbox, despite Xbox being better in a few ways (certain shaders). I wouldn't put 3DS or New 3DS above Wii. Xenoblade and Monster Hunter perform worse on New 3DS than Wii. 3DS is around a GameCube, New 3DS is above GameCube but below Wii and maybe even below Xbox. 

Xbox Series X has better rasterization performance, thanks to 20% higher integer and floating point performance.
Combine that with higher pixel, texel, geometry, texture fillrate and higher memory bandwidth... It's a no brainer that the Series X has the edge.

So what you have stated is blatantly false.

The only real advantage the Playstation 5 has is SSD performance.

But honestly, the performance delta is pretty much irrelevant between the two, most games push for parity anyway.

How come many games run better on ps5?

I largely agree with this list. However, as an owner of both a PS5 and XSX, I've been more impressed by PS5 games than Xbox games. I haven't been able to do any direct comparisons, as I'm not purchasing any multi -platform games on both systems. But, on average, I feel like the PS5's graphics have been better.

That said, we're talking about a tiny little difference, that probably is more about game design than system capabilities. I buy all of my multi-platform games on Xbox, so that should tell you how much little stock I put in my opinion about the PS5 graphics being superior.

As much I love discussing hardware, this may be a bit too much at the moment to start comparing all the systems, but one thing people seem to forget is that newer systems tend to have more advanced (graphics) libraries. Even if two systems look on par on paper, a system that's five or ten years newer can likely do a lot of stuff the older system can't - or do the same with less resources, resulting in better real world performance, even if the theoretical peak values would look the same.

Then also some systems, like Saturn vs. PSX vs. N64 vs. NDS are quite interesting because of their completely different philosophy with their design. Saturn looks a bit different from the other systems because of it's square-shaped polygons - which is also why it has so low polycount relative to other system that are using triangles; Saturn needs to calculate 33% more lines than the other systems for the same polycount. PSX and N64 had similar architecture that both had a non-GPU geometry engine to free GPU resources to other tasks. PSX had some goodlooking games that were made by streaming textures from disc, but the games did not have much graphical effects. N64 had way too small texture memory, but every game had incredible effects for their time. NDS on the other had two screens so it had to output 30% more pixels than the other systems, and it was very much like PSX when it comes to effects, even as otherwise NDS blows the 5th gen systems out of the water. But the differences with the systems makes the hardware interesting.

Which system is the lead platform for development can have a big impact on game performance.

Early in the 7th gen, 360 was the lead for most games, leading to games struggling on the PS3 as its complicated hardware had to be specifically coded for to get good results. Later that gen, devs realized you got closer to parity if you focused on PS3 first then ported to 360, and this became the norm in the later years leading to better PS3 performance in multiplatform titles.

This gen, PS5 has nearly double the install base of the Xbox Series, so it makes commercial sense for PS5 to be the lead platform and be prioritized higher when it comes to optimization efforts.

This is also why you also sometimes see the Xbox One X carry over lower graphics setting from the base Xbox One despite being mutliple times more powerful, even as recently as Hogwarts Legacy this year; there are just not that many One Xs out there so often devs will decide it doesn't make commercial sense to put a lot of time and resources into optimizing for it.

Same reason why many games ran and looked better on Xbox 360, despite the PS3 having the performance edge.
Same reason why some PS2 games ran better than OG Xbox despite the OG Xbox being in a different league entirely hardware wise. (Metal Gear Solid 2, Need for Speed hot pursuit 2 comes to mind)

It comes down to lead platform of development and developer competence.

In saying that, there are many games that do actually look and run better on Xbox Series X.

And whilst games can be used to judge a platforms capabilities, there are other aspects that need to be considered.

Saturn used Quadratics, ironically nVidia's first graphics processor (NV1) also used Quadratics.

Quadratics isn't "square shaped polygons" - They are Squares, not triangles... That would be like asserting that squares are the same as a triangle, they aren't, they are different shapes.

Quadratics isn't always planar/plat like a triangle either, which meant games could potentially have more curvature and complexity than they would otherwise seem to have.
The issue stems when you want to shade those areas, which meant you needed to split the quads into triangles anyway.

However... Quadratics ironically shine when it comes to ray intersections and surface normals which could be computed extremely efficiently. (Think: Ray Tracing.)

The Nintendo 64 was able to more efficiently stream data from carts due to the solid state storage that carts used.. Compared to the PS1.
The issue was the 4kb texture cache... Smart developers eventually work ways around that limitation with layering and clamping of textures, especially RARE with Conker and Factor 5 with indiana jones.

The Nintendo 64 -did- have a geometry engine.
Reality Display processor did per pixel operations and the Reality Signal Processor did vertex and geometry calculations and was capable of doing Geforce/Radeon DX7 levels of Transform and Lighting.

I'm in the opinion a system is that made to run games. If it ain't running most games  better then its really not better hardware. to me 360 has way too much games that run better its the better hardware period. its like a car engine with more HP but gets smoked in  almost every race with a car with less HP. xbox ran almost every port better with a few a rare cases. if you want the system that gives the better experience for most games it was 360 easy. 

Well yes, they are 4-sided polygons, triangles would be 3-sided polygons, pentagons 5-sided and so on - although to my understanding the polygons did not actually need to be square, as long as there four sides. It would be much more fair to compare how many lines the systems are able to draw.

I did remember it wrong; the N64 GPU actually had a geometry engine, it's just that the GPU had two processors in it, of which the other handled the geometry. Playstation, on the other hand, had the geometry engine as a co-processor for the CPU.

N64 could stream more efficiently from the cart, as carts were roughly 100 times faster than CD ROMs at the time, but the problem was the lack of space. You could not fit a lot of high quality textures to cart, a CD could fit about ten times as much as N64 cart could. Basically N64 was designed for number crunching and doing everything it could from the code.