Here's a site to feed on; just beware of the (single, thankfuly) annoying pop-under.
http://consolebattle.8k.com/
Here's a site that compares them, if you can re-interpret the typos that seemingly favor the Xbox heavily (such as implying that it can do 6.4
billion polygons per second...).
Also, as anyone should know, the clock speed is a poor measure of a computer's power. My main rig runs at a paultry 1.8 Ghz, but since it's an Athlon64, it hangs in there with the 3+ Ghz CPUs. A better example (especially for Intel fanboys) is the Intel Pentium M processor... While it has half the clock speed of a standard Mobile Pentium 4, it's effectively just as powerful.
After a few hours' of research, I've found that in performance, the three are very close. The PS2 is obviously the weakest, but not by much. The XBox, once you convert the figures to equate PCs and Consoles, is about 30% more powerful than the PS2, and the Gamecube is about 32% more powerful.
However, I must say that the Gamecube wins performance hands-down, as its games use Trililear filter by default (it blurs the textures on 3 axes instead of the standard 2, making it far harder to determine individual pixels), and the GC also uses anisotropic filtering by default, which definitely improves image clarity. NONE of the systems use full-scene anti-aliasing whatsoever, though. Also, while I believe all three consoles have four tecture pipelines (limiting them to 4 texutres per surface), the Gamecube can acomplish
8 textures per pixel per pass, allowing more detailed areas to not require a cut to 30fps.
That said, the specs are pointless if you don't even want the games for them. BTW, I don't own any of the three; I'm happy with my PC... Multi-playing? That's what LAN parties are for.
------------------
"
I know there's got to be some sort of mathematical equation for this sort of thing, but I prefer trial and error. It's one of the advantages of having a socialized health care system."