Absolutely.  I never got the underpowered claims for the S1.  For a device that fit into a (large) pocket, it was putting up ps3+ graphics, that was crazy.

I will maintain the whole "Nintendo is weak hardware" is a myth.  Outside the Wii, all their hardware has been solid to really good.  

Anybody watch Digital Foundry's FF7 Remake S2 tech analysis? Basically, it is FF7 Integrade (ps5 version) but with graphical settings closer to the ps4 version. It punches above the ps4 version (specifically textures) but sits closer to said version than the ps5 version regarding shadows/resolution/pop-in/etc. Overall, they seemed quite please, a great way to play the game and the S2 does a good job at locking 30 fps.

Yeah just finished watching that actually.

The results are about where they should be given the hardware; partway between PS4 and PS5, taking advantage of things like more RAM and faster I/O to improve texture quality and streaming and DLSS for better image quality, while still understandably below the raw grunt of PS5 due to the limits of mobile tech.

Loading is way quicker too, which is nice. Good port. I liked it more than Rebirth.

Biggest cut back seems to be pop in, very noticeable in the video via DF.  Though, I could be sensitive to pop in.  That was my biggest complaint with E33, foliage pop in.

The GCN had an easily debunked and undeserved reputation for being weak among non-forum dwelling denizens for A) going with mini-discs with a smaller storage capacity, B) Looking like a preschooler's lunchbox and C) getting half-ass ports of games made with other systems in mind.

Yeah it's remarkable how many people back then thought Gamecube was weaker than the PS2, when even at the time the specs and info were easily accessible online.

Bit like how so many people thought Switch 1 was on par with PS3/360 or Switch 2 is on par with PS4, again despite all the proof to the contrary.

The 90s/early 2000s was the quintessential time of marketing fluff/hype overriding all. 

A lot of people thought the Sega Genesis had better hardware than the Super NES too because of Sega's marketing. 

PS2 was egregious bullshit though, Sony trying to claim 66 million polygons per second, we know now that most PS2 games really didn't push beyond 2-4 million polys/sec as was mentioned earlier in this thread. But people just seized on that phony number to say "wow 66 million blows away Sega Dreamcast's 2-3 million polys!".

You can see again here, Enter the Matrix was a big ticket multiplat release of that era (tons of hype):

GameCube has better image quality and way better frame rate (go to 5:05). XBox has the highest frame rate, but that was also a hardware where MS was losing like $100+ per unit. GameCube was the best engineered system that gen and dollar for dollar the best performance and just flat out better than the PS2, GameCube was more like a PS2 Pro.

Rogue Squadron 3 on Gamecube at times pushed 9 million PPS. R&C (I forget which one) peaked around 5 million PPS on PS2. I don't know if that is PS2's limit but would not doubt it.

Yeah stuff like Rogue Squadron 2/3 or Starfox Adventures that made heavy use of Gamecube's multitexturing capabilities likely couldn't be done on PS2 as Sony's system was slower at these operations.

The Rogue Squadron games for instance threw around a ton of bumpmapping while running at 60fps with very high polygon counts.

RE4 had to be downgraded to run on PS2, with lower polygon models, lower rez textures, and missing details and lighting effects.

Such a great generation of consoles but despite winning that generation I was most disappointed with the PS2. I used to have a setup with a Panasonic AE100 projector so could see every pixel and the PS2 was always disappointing on the big screen. I had the early Gamecube that allowed for progressive scan 480p Gamecube games using Nintendo's component cable and the visual quality was fantastic at the time. I couldn't believe how good the Roque Squadron games looked. The only console that looked better in visual clarity was the Dreamcast because of its VGA output which the projector did a more vivid image with than component but of course the Gamecube overall had much more impressive games although Dreamcast still had some very impressive titles visually like Shenmue, Soul Calibur and Dead or Alive 2. You would think the xbox would be best but it's component output wasn't as clean as Gamecube and the image ended up not being as vivid. It was like the Xbox had a standard LCD display and gamecube was OLED in comparison. PS2 image quality was pretty awful from its component output but that is mainly down to the low resolution and poor textures I think although I think I played a fair bit of Gran Turismo on it. Great times. When it came to sound though, PS2 was second only to original Xbox. The 5.1 surround sound output was much better than the sound of Gamecube and Dreamcast both just had 2 channel sound and Dolby Prologic type surround systems. Not much sound immersion at all. The Rogue Squadron games made the effort and probably the best sound from Gamecube but still a little weak.