If you want power buy a PC. Consoles have never been about power, other than in comparison to their peers, but that’s just marketing bullshit.
I'm not so sure about that:
When the NES was released (japan 1983, us 1985) there was nothing like it in the home AT ALL.
Same for the Sega Master System.
However, when the TurboGrafx 16 /Genesis (1987 in Japan, 1989 in the US, both got CD add-ons) you had x68000 - japan only - computers that would outdo any gaming console at anything (Atari ST and Amiga cannot do tye same claim, they did some stuff better than consoles, but not everything all the time)
The SNES released in 1990/1991 was a graphics processing monster early on, it would stretch a background layer anyway you wanted at 60fps, provide transparency effects... However it wasn't as good as older consoles at handling a lot of moving sprites... But still, early on computers didn't outperform it at everything.
Now the PS1 was released in 1994, offered very basic hardware accelerated 3D, 16bit colors, gouraud shading, colored ligh sources, multilayer transparency effects, high definition mode that offered good (for the time) 3d gaming at a decent price.
Then Nintendo released the N64 - 3d acceleration wasn't that good on PCs at this point in time, Mario 64 was state of the art 3d in the home (arcades were way ahead already, but this is not what I'm responding to). Obviously, again, PCs did some things better, way better but they weren't always better at everything, and they cost wayyyy more.
The PS2 had its limitations, but it still featured pixel shaders, something that would not be coming to PCs for a little while.
From then on I grant you are right, by the time the Xbox came out that wasn't true anymore, since then I always had PCs that both did everything the consoles did, better and faster... With shorter loading times, etc. Just less comfort and bad ports... I will not bring the exclusive argument, because the PC platform has way more exclusive games, they're just different.