Well, from what I understand of the Amiga, it's pretty amazing hardware compared to standard PC. Coupled with code written specifically for it, I'm not at all surprised.
I think I tried the PSX one before. I never got it working so I'm not 100% certain. However, bear in mind that my original point was to show a general scale. The point being to demonstrate the amount of power needed for each of those, with actual PC emulation at the very top taking enormous power to have a chance at. I did a little looking around, and there is indeed a SNES emulator for the PS2. Apparently it can actually run pretty close to full speed a lot of times, but, some games are capable of bringing it down to 20 FPS. On that scale, with SNES being so far below ~486, (maybe more like 386 on this system, hard to pinpoint it exactly) emulation, I don't think it looks good. I could be wrong mind you, since I don't have much to extrapolate the lower 086 or so range that we're talking here, but, I have a feeling it'd be lucky to pull of anything that isn't text only.
This is excluding those fundamental architectural differences that I believe make the whole business of attempting to emulate a PC even harder for such a system. Mind you, from what I understood, the PSX was originally trying to be somewhat more PC-like than most consoles (excluding the PC-Engine I suppose) and I will admit that VGS worked pretty darned well on my old P2-350 system way back when (albiet looking pretty ugly.) Since the PS2 is so backwards compatible, it might be made somewhat similarly, but, I still don't think there's much chance of it being powerful enough.
Don't know where the similarities of PSP and PS2 or PSX are exactly. I suspect the PSP is probably a lot more specialized to get such abilities out of such a device without them costing an arm, a leg, and possibly a kidney.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade or anything, I'm just saying that if I were you, I wouldn't get my hopes up. With such fundamentally different hardware designed for gaming not general computing, I really think there's very little chance of getting any games involving actual movement to work worth the trouble someone would have to go to to do this when they could be spending it on finding ways to make DOSBox better on PCs instead of consoles. (Darn I can't wait for the day that we can emulate a full system with all the power of a pentium. Mind you, that will probably be years from now when we have much more powerful processors to be honest. I'm willing to bet that DOSBox isn't so much going to get more efficient as it's just going to emulate better. It's probably as efficient as it gets -- roughly, may go up or down 1% several times, but, never much I bet.)
EDIT: Just did a little more reading (actually, I was looking for something else and happened upon this part.) Apparently the SNES processor was actually running at a variable frequency of up to 3.58 MHz. Never ceases to amaze me how much you can get if you specialize the living daylights out of something like that. SNES was comparable to a good 386 or so in most things -- in some even a 486 (like those nice transparency effects.)
Believe what you will, but, considering how hard THAT is to emulate, I don't really think there's a decent chance unless it were completely redesigned and rewritten in assembly specifically for that system, and, even then I wouldn't expect much. What's more, it would have to be specifically packaged for each game with special configurations to do key mappings and such for that particular game because, unless I'm mistaken, there are no keyboard addons for PSP. (Does it have USB maybe? I don't have a PSP to look at. Either way, it kind of defeats the point of having a hand-held tied down to a huge keyboard. And don't think PDA keyboard, because those are designed specifically for PDAs as far as I've ever been able to find.)
All I can say is, I just don't see it happening, no matter what. Who's going to consider that worth the time and trouble when they could be working on getting it on an Xbox or something instead.