IMO graphically its been proven in my post on this thread as Gamecube>Xbox>Dreamcast>Ps2 although it can be Ps2>Xbox>Gamecube>Dreamcast Game wise. Ps2 being the longest living and having the largest game library..giving Popurality and marketing in consideration as well (although marketing delivered by the companies should have put it as something like Xbox>Dreamcast>Ps2>Gamecube). Overall its obvious Xbox>Gamecube>Ps2>Dreamcast, generically speaking of course.;)

added: AA Games wise, of course its Xbox=Gamecube=Ps2=Dreamcast which is what makes this gen so interesting. Check out my blog for more details. If you want to look at last gen's war, its obviously Psone>N64>Saturn>Other, Psone being imo for obvious reasons the best and only good console by sony even if Saturn was technically more powerful in its cpu it would be like comparing Gamecube to Ps2 except back in the day. Technically though that gen is N64>Saturn>Psone while its gpu is N64>Psone>Saturn. N64 given consideration with its small data storages.

Xbox is best by miles, if you dont see it, then your need a serious eyecheck.

Some games on the ps2 looked better than most gamecube games.

So its more like XBOX > PS2/Gamecube > Dreamcast

g0ddyX

Game comparisons:

Good point, ps2 IS the odd man of the group except here is some proof. Mario, starfox, rogue Squadron, Zelda. These games cant be possible on ps2 while gamecube could make a gt4, mgs or watever ps2 has to offer with 1 or 2 discs. Sooo instead of artistic impression I am narrowing the gap to compare effects and hardware capability. Basically Ps2 cant do bumpmapping, fluid cellshading and have the speed gamecube has. You also forget nintendo really considered hardware in this gen. They put ngc at a whopping 20 million polys. Ps2 was built for realtime, environments and color and its cpu was anything but weak except its technology came out only a year after the dreamcast giving little if no consideration to gpu capabilities. Polys are useful for detail, except re4 rules even that out. For a closing argument, have any dreamcast games ported over to the ps2 become significantly better? Answer: No

Specs analysis:

GPU Winner Gamecube: To simply be put, gpu is Gamecube first because it excels in textures, has 8x bumpmapping and faster pipelines, making the graphics have an edge. Xbox comes close at 4x bumpmapping, texture and color with direct x except all this is nothing if you have a T&L engine. Gamecube also uses ram exclusively for the GPU. Hence GPU ram is not shared giving gamecube better and more textures. If you want to know what I mean, just look at the 360's gpu compared to ps3. The xbox specs are insigificantly better, and at the same time too close for comfort.

Runner up: The Dreamcast beats the Ps2 in this round because Ps2 doesnt have high res textures, and if you use it on an HD signal, you will see it has no AA unless at 1080p. The Dreamcast has more ram for its GPU, giving games like Shenmue an almost CGI look without cheesy built-in hardware effects. Dreamcast has 2x bumpmapping (shaders and lighting around objects) and ps2 has none (or vector based bumpmapping which is imitated or reflective flat surfaces within the polys). Gamecube and Dreamcast both having considerably powerful pipeline transfer between cpu and gpu (easily able to load data directly from the cd formats).

CPU WinnerXbox: This is obvious because Xbox's cpu beats Gamecube by being faster, with more ram. Strengthening its ability of larger environments with better textures (even if its slightly more blurry than the gamecube). Doa 3 and Halo being perfect graphical examples of its multipurpose capabilities.

Runner up: The Ps2 should take Gamecube's place except it doesnt because it is a weaker cpu, more advanced in effects and wide environments but overall considerably weaker. Without effects and polys ps2 is nothing. A machine that needs movie-like budgets for programming and considerable time for artistic development. Art rendering on high budget games like MGS and GT4 r equal, if not better graphics. Except Gamecube has one advantage, and its in the speed of the cpu. A slow paced rpg with realtime is nothing compared to the speed of a cpu in gameplay. Also in ex unlike ps2, Soul Calibur II gc is just faster and more fluid without any traces of low framerates. Dreamcast being an older system, its rendering engine is built for selective arcade-like games giving Dreamcast near same arguments (with ps2 @least).

Conclusion: Ps2 and Xbox are built like PCs, while Ps2's emotion engine are specialized to run processes exclusively for Ps2 games. Ps2 in particle effects and rain (see mgs for exclusive rendering abilities within its engine) and Xbox is the same way (a P3), except more like Gamecube's microprocessor PowerPC. I think Gamecube and Dreamcast are arcade machines, they are built that way and have unique games for it. Ps2 is different because it is sony's custom multi-vector cpu with multiple ( 8 ) processors (16, 32 and 128 ) or a complex hybrid cpu. The other consoles work like a 32 bit PC cpu (xbox and gc) or 64 bit arcade cpu (dc) in that gen (with 32 64 and/or 128 bit processes or instruction sets). Any arcade enthusiast should pick one or the other up. Like cartoon games? Go for DC and Gamecube, like realism go for the other. Xbox and Ps2 are supreme in hardware effects and budget, which doesnt necessary make the gpus better. 8)

CPU Xbox>Gamecube>Ps2>Dreamcast

GPU Gamecube>Xbox>Dreamcast>Ps2

Data storage Xbox=Ps2>Dreamcast>Gamecube

[QUOTE="dcps210go"]

I agree, halo 2 was a reason to get xbox live, halo 3 wasnt. Halo 3 got rid of everything that was fun online. Halo 1 was fun in multiplayer, halo 2 stepped it up and halo 3 stepped it down. Mp Halo2>Halo1>Halo3. Storywise its Halo>Halo3>Halo2.

DJ_Magneto

I agree, halo 2 was a reason to get xbox live, halo 3 wasnt. Halo 3 got rid of everything that was fun online. Halo 1 was fun in multiplayer, halo 2 stepped it up and halo 3 stepped it down. Mp Halo2>Halo1>Halo3. Storywise its Halo>Halo3>Halo2.