But it isn't, the portability is only a "big deal" when fans of the switch are talking about it, for indies and 2d games that may be the case since the game doesnt have to suffer in the translation and can add it's own portable flair to it with device-specific changes to the gameplay.

But to everyone else, who already played and beat doom on pc, ps4 or xbox one, ask them "do you want to play the game again on a portable" the answer from most would be no, and the few that would, all of the streaming options for those users, are cheaper than buying a switch+doom, sure it isn't running natively on a handheld but that has as many advantages as it does disadvantages.

disadvantages:
Requires stable net connection
Requires the game be running on your pc/console that's also connected to the net

advantages:
Can be played for longer, since streaming uses less power than running natively
Can be played at the original graphical quality, no downgrade to textures, geometry, etc.

With the exception of the Vita, most PC/XB/PS owners also already own a device that can, either directly or with slight effort, be used to stream the game anyway, (smartphone is enough in most cases).

Pulling out the "but it's portable" card to salvage a situation when a game has clear downgrades/missing features isn't a magic bullet, it won't be at the best of times, but doing so on a fast paced FPS is even more of an issue, because FPs historically play poorly on handhelds.

A 2x slower CPU does mean 30FPS instead of 60FPS unless there's a low enough overhead on the CPU side and we can see this with the majority of AAA games so far ... (The only current/cross-gen AAA game on the Switch that did maintain the same framerate as the home console versions was FIFA 18 so that means 4/5 current/cross-gen AAA games on the Switch has downgraded framerate.) 

I am not denying that the majority of AAA games on the PS4 is 30FPS and you can you use Skyrim as much as you want since I was only arguing in specific to current/cross-gen AAA games ... 

You used Skyrim as an example since it's easily the lowbar when I was talking about current gen AAA games ... (Skyrim isn't even a cross-gen title, it's a last gen title with no next gen version in mind.) 

We don't know the framerate of those other AAA game ports but if I had to guess most of them will either end up with 30FPS or cut content/different gameplay mechanics ...

If they can port Doom and Wolfenstein 2 that are true next gen games, they can literally port any other PS4/XB1 game to Switch. Its not point only about more RAM, Switch CPU and GPU architecture are very modern and much closer to PS4/XB1 architecture than PS3/Xbox360, they support all modern features and engines.

Lol, you still refuse to accept fact that Switch is noticeable stronger than PS3/Xbox360. It's not only point about 6-8x more RAM, but also fact that Switch ARM CPU is much modern and much more subtitle for modern games that ancient PS3 CPU even if PS3 CPU on paper has more strength (PS3 CPU has more strengnt even PS4/XB1 CPUs in some parts, you refuse to accept that PS3 CPU/GPU are around 10 years older tech/architecture compared to Switch ones), talking about GPU, GPU is stronger and much more capable even in handheld mode, not to mentione docked mode.

We already know that Skyrim is working on portable mode in 720p and there is not FPS drops, thats most likly 1080p in docked mode, and thats actualy based on Special version of Skyrim. In comparison, first version of Skyrim runs at 720p on PS3/Xbox360. Also you dont need to look only at Skyrim, look Minecraft, look at Fifa, look at other 3rd party games that also exist on PS3/Xbox360, you will see that they are working at higher resolution on Switch (in most cases 1080p vs 720p on PS3/Xbox360). Switch currently hardly has any game that runs at 720p (they are 900p-1080p in most cases), while over 95% PS3/Xbox 360 games were 720p, that fact also tells you what is difference in power, and devs yet need to start taking out most of Switch hardware.

Lets wait to see how portable mode turns out. I certainly do feel there is a cpu deficit in the Switch design but only by the ratio I have already stated based on benchmarks and evidence. We don't know how much dynamic resolution is being used or seen final retail code. It doesn't matter about age only peformance. The wii u was based on later technology but often performed below ps3/360 levels because it was low performance costed hardware. Again we had all this before with Nintendo fans claiming wii and wii u were more powerful than they were but the facts got through in the end and those fans were shown to be incorrect. Lets not forget not only do they have to make the game run at a much lower performance level in portable mode but give reasonable battery life too. There may be other power saving issues we haven't seen yet that the retail code will get. Again this is all premature we need to see final retail code. There are also other factors like compression on cartridges. Rayman Legends has a lower frame rate and inferior graphcs on Switch than wii u. Not because of any shortfall in Switch performance but because of minimising file size with heavy compression. That could also be a factor with larger games like this for retail code. It's naive in the extreme to base performance on what publishers and developers want you to see before the game is launched. 

Also I've been writing in the past about the Switch being capable of running VR versions of many 360 and PS3 games if a VR headset becomes available for Switch like the Nintendo patents. I'm fully aware of the superiority of Switch over 360 and PS3 in many areas. Admittedly I believe such a headset will be reliant on a power connection so it can run at docked performance level though.

while over 95% PS3/Xbox 360 games were 720p

Again, you're forgetting the huge number of games on PS3/360 that were sub-HD.

Fact that some multiplatform games were performed below PS3/360 is not prove that Wii U hardware is weaker, simple because devs learned to use most of PS3/360 hardware in 2012, while devs in 2012.

And fact is that Wii U is more capable than PS3/Xbox360, Wii U has less capable CPU, but has more modern and capable GPU and 2-4x more RAM, so used in right way, Wii U hardware could achive more.

Evrething we saw until now tells us how much more capibile Switch is compared to PS3/360/WiiU (again, Switch currently hardly has any game that runs at 720p (they are 900p-1080p in most cases), while only few were above 720p on PS3/Xbox360 and we actualy had plenty of sub HD games, that fact also tells you what is difference in power, and devs yet need to start taking out most of Switch hardware). Rayman Legends is heavily compressed on Switch and that's actually only game that has some miniuses compared to PS3/360/WiiU versions of games.

This is absolutely correct.
People forget that the Playstation 3 had inferior multiplatform ports compared to the Xbox 360 for a stupidly long time.
The Playstation 3 was also "technically superior" on paper.

It was also a more efficient GPU capable of more effects.

The fact you even have to debate this in 2017 going on 2018 is pretty asanine in my opinion.

The resolution of games isn't a determiner of how powerful a platform truly is. There were a fairly large amount of Original Xbox games that were 720P and 1080i, but I am pretty sure the Wii didn't have any games exceed 480P and should have been the console that was technically faster.

I have always said the Switch was a big step up over last gen, but also a step down from the current gen. The games have proven that, the hardware has told us that, this discussion has been done to death on these forums... If people havent seen the evidence (games) and still deny it all... Well. They are beyond convincing.

The Switch beats the Xbox 360, Wii U and Playstation 3 no contest.

Lets wait to see how portable mode turns out. I certainly do feel there is a cpu deficit in the Switch design but only by the ratio I have already stated based on benchmarks and evidence. We don't know how much dynamic resolution is being used or seen final retail code. It doesn't matter about age only peformance. The wii u was based on later technology but often performed below ps3/360 levels because it was low performance costed hardware. Again we had all this before with Nintendo fans claiming wii and wii u were more powerful than they were but the facts got through in the end and those fans were shown to be incorrect. Lets not forget not only do they have to make the game run at a much lower performance level in portable mode but give reasonable battery life too. There may be other power saving issues we haven't seen yet that the retail code will get. Again this is all premature we need to see final retail code. There are also other factors like compression on cartridges. Rayman Legends has a lower frame rate and inferior graphcs on Switch than wii u. Not because of any shortfall in Switch performance but because of minimising file size with heavy compression. That could also be a factor with larger games like this for retail code. It's naive in the extreme to base performance on what publishers and developers want you to see before the game is launched. 

Also I've been writing in the past about the Switch being capable of running VR versions of many 360 and PS3 games if a VR headset becomes available for Switch like the Nintendo patents. I'm fully aware of the superiority of Switch over 360 and PS3 in many areas. Admittedly I believe such a headset will be reliant on a power connection so it can run at docked performance level though.