Funfact: The PS2 was more powerful than the dreamcast so it was not the "weakest" at that generation. The GPU wasn't that bad it was also okay at pushing out pixels too plus the most powerful part about the PS2 were it's vector units VU0 and VU1.

Both were incredibly weak compared to PC GPUs of the time, and just lol at the PS2 GPU even being okay at pushing pixels, even the weak as fuck two year older DC trashed it in that regard by a factor of 4 to 1, let alone the PC GPUs running unreal 1024x768 at 60fps.

A wider domain is at hand though. I suppose even so your word over his.

Funfact: If you were willing to call the PS2's GPU shit then the powerVR CLX2 is abysmal lol. Dreamcast is just absolutely weak in almost every metric. BTW PS2 pixel fillrate was about a third of PS3's.

Does it really matter when you have 7/8 year old consoles that are capable of running all the latest games available on PC with only a slight downgrade in the visuals department?

I'd like to see a PC built exclusively with components circa 2005 try to run the most current games... ain't gonna happen. Remember when the first Crysis came out and everyone was spending well over a grand just to be able to run it on high settings back in 2007? It's now available for download on PS360 and looks on-par with what most gaming rigs could offer back in '07.

The Dreamcast might have also had (If Sega did end up sticking with the plan which they didn't!) A 3dfx Voodoo.
Which was the best GPU, bar none back then.
Eventually, during the PS2's lifetime the PC started to get Pixel shading, first it was fixed function then later programmable, most evidently showcased in the Elder Scrolls Morrowind's water which was a PC exclusive at the time untill the Xbox arrived onto the scene.

The PC then had a stupidly massive lead over the consoles in regards to image quality which was showcased in a ton of exclusive games. (More AAA exclusives back then, compared to today!)

Still, I like my games with a ton of depth and complexity and I love me an RTS game in the morning, hence the PC is easily the best for my gaming tastes, the bonus is I get the best possible image quality out of it.

The glaring omission in this logic is cost. 10 years ago you didn't have $1000 graphics cards. Sure, a Titan can outperform a $400 console, good for it.

There's no $400 PC that will ACTUALLY perform nearly as well as the PS4 or XB1. 'Actually' meaning, in the real world. Not some "ooh look at these 'comparable specs'" fantasy world.

Consoles vs. PC is still pretty much the same as it has always been, the difference being more expensive cards are available now.

Which part? the part where they were comparable to nice PCs when they came out or what I explained in the sentence already?

Not entirely accurate, but rest assured I read your opinion. :)

Mantle will close the inefficiency gap of the PC's software stack, I.E. The PS4's Underclocked Radeon 7870 will perform almost the same as a PC's Radeon 7870 if the market plays out.
You can also buy a 6-7 year old Core 2 Quad complete PC these days second hand for about $200, overclock it to 3.6ghz+ and you're set.
Then all you need to do then is drop another $200 for a Radeon 7870 (Or a 7950 if you jump on a sale or go second hand!) and you have your PS4 in a box.
Plus, that's in Australia, the PS4 is actually $550 verses that $400 PC which ends up faster.

You also get free online, saving you hundreds of dollars, games are all typically $10-$20 cheaper than their console counterpart which if you're like me who buys allot of games, you could literally save thousands of dollars, suddenly consoles don't look as attractive from a cost perspective, huh?

Yeah the part where they were comparable to nice PC's part. I was like WTF ? :P