I don't know well see, if GTAV comes out  on switch, but Noir didn't fair to well, it had worse frame rate then the ps3 version.

Yeah these graphics are really nothing to boast about. Great for handheld but already aged by this gens home console standards. 

Switch as the next generation to the Vita graphically or the same gen as ps3 is the same thing. Both things I've said. Glad you agree with one of them. 

GTA 5 is bigger and you can create quite some mayhem in the counties with the framerate still being stable.

you can do the same for almost any technically impressive looking if you wanna list every effect it does, that doesn't impress me. i'm not saying zelda is not impressive, but its obvious that a living breathing city with traffic, and NPC every where is gonna way more demanding then empty looking forest areas, and on top of that it has better graphics.

you have no point, every single open world games ran much better on 360/ps3, there was even a developer that said wiiu cpu was weak, and when lot of enemies coming at you at once, the performance tends to be affected because of the CPU. you running around telling people zelda cant run on ps3/360 is baseless speculation, and wrong. anyway this isn't going no where, until there is zelda port on ps3/360 or GTAV port this is a waste of time.

L.A. Noire runs at dynamic 1080p on Switch when docked with better textures, shading, and shadows. Where it falls behind (draw distance and framerate) it seems to be a matter of optimization and polish. For example, oddly they tied the frame-rate with the rate of gameplay on Switch whereas on PS3 if the framerate dropped they'd drop frames while maintaining the rate of gameplay. This shows a somewhat lack of polish, because there is no performance reason for why they'd choose to do one over the other. Conversely, when the game was first developed there was heavy optimization in taking advantage of the PS3's SPE's and it was actually something they bragged about. I suspect the PS4 and XBO don't have this problems because their CPU's just have more raw power than the Switch's (roughly 1.8 - 2x more at least.) 

GTA5 on last gen is far from stable, it chugs even more than the Wii U version of Botw.

Zelda's forest areas are not empty, they're teeming with wildlife, dense interactive foliage, volumetric light filtering through the leaves, tons of shadow casting, floating dust, pollen, drifting leaves, etc. This can in fact be more demanding than a comparatively sparse city street.

Zelda is a memory intensive game to the point where it's one of only two Wii U games to stream from both disc and hard drive.

Wii U = 1GB of RAM

PS3/360 = Less than 500MB

These are facts, not speculation.

Unless this has changed with a later firmware the Switch still caps its CPU's to 1ghz and only 3 are used for games and this applies to both docked and undocked modes and while these are more capable cpu's than in the 360 and PS3 they easily surpass Switch by the sheer speed they run at, 3.2ghz. While many have said the reason the Switch can't run LA Noire well is its optimised to utilise the PS3's cell processors the 360 did in fact run the game well too and I don't think its unfair to say both 360 and PS3 easily surpass Switch CPU performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZT8lB0icC8

Isn't it something like 9,000 mips for wii u, 13,000 mips for Switch (due to the 1ghz limit) but something like 20,000 mips for 360 and maybe 28,000-40,000 mips for ps3. PS4 and Xbone are up to 34,000 - 38,000 mips. If the Tegra CPU's were run at full speed of course it would be different but they aren't they are only run at about half speed in Switch but you can imagine if Nintendo released more cpu performance with a later firmware it would comfortably surpass 360 and be closer to the other consoles. Both PS4 and Xbone never pushed cpu performance in their consoles being only a mild jump from the last gen.

There are cheap octacore android tablets that exceed 30,000 mips for cpu performance but of course have much, much weaker gpu performance than Switch. For comparison the current AMD Ryzen CPU can exceed 300,000 mips. Cisc chipsets tend to get more work done per cycle as they have a larger instruction set (generalisation). 

However mobile chipsets tend to utilise the main cpu for secondary tasks too and don't have as many support processors as non mobile chipsets. So a comparison of mobile vs non mobile without factoring that in would not be fair. So a mobile chipset 10,000 mips is weaker than a non mobile 10,000mips chipset which again is weaker than a cisc 10,000 mips non mobile chipset. I'm just making the point the issues of LA Noire on Switch are extremely likely based on the weak cpu performance especially as the issue effects both docked and undocked.

It is really hard to compare real-world performance for CPU's with such drastically different architectures without benchmarks (and even with benchmarks it is difficult.) 

One way to measure theoretical CPU performance is in DMIPS though (basically how many million instructions per second can the processor perform after considering differences in instruction sets by a generalized benchmark called Dhrystone.) An instruction set is the set of all instructions that the CPU's machine language provides for. 

So for the A57 the recorded statistic is 4.1-4.5 DMIPS/MHZ. Let's just take it to be 4.3 DMIPS/MHZ. Mutiply that by a clock speed of 1020 MHZ, and we get 4182 DMIPS/core. 

Scouring the web it looks like Expresso is 2877.32 DMIPS/core  

The ratio of performance is then 4 cores*(4182) DMIPS/core/ 3 cores*(2877.32)DMIPS/core =  1.93 times more instructions/sec for Switch's cpu than Expresso. 

So more or less twice as many instructions per second, on a basic comparison. 

The Xbox 360's CPU provides 5638.90 DMIPS @ 3.2 MHZ for all cores

Which gives a ratio of (4*4182)DMIPS/5638.90 DMIPS or about 3 times the Xenon. 

Not even going to bother comparing to the CELL because the architecture is so odd. 

Jaguar has about 3.6 DMIPS/MHZ , so 1,750 MHZ * 3.6 DMIPS *8 cores = 50,400 DMIPS (for XBOX ONE)

So the Switch's CPU is about 33% the Jaguar @1,750 MHZ (assuming both use all of their cores.) 

Jaguar in the PS4/XBO ~ 3* A57 in Switch;  A57 in Switch ~ 2*Expresso in Wii U ~ 3*Xenon in Xbox 360 (theoretically; assuming all cores can be used to the max.) 

Performance is of course different, because we know Microsoft and probably Nintendo don't use all of their cores at max. 

Also note that developers have commented that the Xenon has better real-world performance than the Expresso, but that could just be a matter of not bothering with optimization for the Wii U's advantages in ports. 

 

Watchdogs on wii u vs ps3 and 360 versions is a massive win for 360 and PS3 because they both utilise their hard drives to stream in data quickly. The lack of hard drive in wii u was a big issue and I don't think the extra 500MB was enough to compensate for it although saying that obviously the wii u had 2GB of memory 4x 360 and PS3, both of which set aside a small amount of memory for their background operating system (not much though). My point is Watchdogs is a similar game to GTA and struggled on wii u and Zelda is a game that while beautiful makes no effort to present a realistic world it is more of a update on Zelda windwaker in visuals. Games like Zelda should not be used for comparison because they simply don't test the hardware. They don't attempt to do realistic physics, textures, lighting etc. However visually pleasing they are it is not really fair. Frankly its the reason Nintendo don't need decent performing hardware because most of their own games (if not all) are done in a cartoon style. The fact that PC's are emulating Zelda BOTW in 8k with high frame rates pretty much shows the underlying hardware. You aren't seeing that for PS3 or 360 games. Windwaker on Gamecube was achieved with only 8 gflops of gpu performance and still looked fantastic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF1Itaye-z8

Everyone realistically knows Zelda BOTW would run on 360 and PS3 its just a question of how the game would be in comparison but it could certainly use hard drive streaming of data to compensate for lack of main memory.  The core engine of Zelda BOTW doesn't look particularly complicated and needy of resources.

First you take look on that list, most of those things dont exist on in GTA V on PS3/360, those are quite impressive and advance things for Wii U hadware not to mentione PS3/360 hadware that older. Empty forest areas!? So we ignoring huge wild life of Zelda BotW with small and big animals, bugs, enemies, lakes, rivers..!? You also ignoring fact that huge BotW world is made in way that player have huge physics based interaction with that same huge world (setting grass on fire, spreading fire in direction of wind, wind that effects on cloud formation, wind that affects player and enemies, lightning that's attracted by metal and that can set of fire grass, cutting trees that fail and water and continue floating in water, very impressive AI of enemies, pounds that grows/vanishing based on weather effects...) all those things are very demanding.

Talking about shading and lighting, you dont know what are you talking about, if you looked at link that I post you would see yourself. Textures are better in GTAV beacuse good textures tend to look better in city avirmant compared to wild world...but world of Zelda BotW is much more bigger and its physics based and its heavily interactive world, so it's much more demanding. Korok Forest has FPS isuses, but GTAV on PS3/360 also are very is often below 30 FPS.

Talking about lighting, shading and effets:

. They don't attempt to do realistic physics, textures, lighting etc.