What you have stated is accurate but its important to also state that in portable mode the Switch graphics resources are much reduced often rendering at a sub HD resolution to maintain frame rate which is worse than 360 and PS3 resolutions, I know that isn't the full story because of the later architecture of the nvidia gpu and an improved feature set and more efficient design but still it is clearly struggling when in portable mode to maintain 720p.

Also again I have to point out storage limitations of a mobile system. PS3 had games on dual layer blu-ray discs giving 50GB of storage on cheap optical discs plus could store large patches and updates on its hard drive. This design gives it more space for the actual game even if its main memory is less. You are never going to get the very high quality 7.1 soundtracks on Switch that the ps3 had on many games and huge variation in realistic textures. 

I seem to remember one of the uncharted games was a 50GB download so that definitely maxed out a dual layer blu-ray disc.

I'm just pointing out there are other factors.  Rayman Legends on Switch has slowdown and compression artifacts in some visuals purely because they have made it as small as possible but ended up making it inferior to ps3, 360 and wii u purely because of heavy compression and aiming for a small file size.

LA Noire is only slightly smaller file size than PS3 on Switch at about 28GB but on a PS3 that easily fits on an optical disc or as a small chunk of its hard drive capacity but that way exceeds the free space available on a Nintendo Switch's flash memory. I haven't looked at LA Noire sales on Switch but you wonder how it can sell well when it is limited to digital sales only to people who have bought large capacity micro sd cards or a cartridge game that still requires a 14GB download due to its 16GB rom size. 14GB is still a huge chunk of what is left over from its standard 32GB memory. 

I only mention this as most games have not gone the LA Noire path but instead made the effort to reduce the size of the game. Lets also not forget the ps3 was absolutely brilliant at compressing itself, the cell was pretty amazing at doing background compressing and uncompressing on the fly which probably helped with the rubbish 256MB x 2 memory system. There is probably a 3x CPU advantage of the PS3 compared to Switch when you factor in the cell processors although developers who could max out ps3 cell performance are probably in the minority.  Even the 360  with its DVD drive still had large hard drive capacity although some larger games were delivered on multiple optical discs.

So yes the Switch has a more powerful GPU and much larger main memory but there are other factors in play when you consider the downclock in gpu performance for portable mode and lack of storage capacity. 

PS3 had some amazing pre-rendered 1080p movie sequences in games with amazing 7.1 soundtracks. They can add a lot of atmosphere and add to the story telling. 

The point is some types of games will remain superior on PS3 mainly due to storage and CPU performance where as others probably the majority will clearly be superior on Switch and many will have attributes that vary between them on which is superior. I feel it unlikely the Switch will ever match the PS3 for audio quality and game soundtracks. 

LA Noire is definitely a game superior on PS3 and 360 I would say despite the huge file size on Switch.

http://www.nintendolife.com/forums/nintendo-switch/nintendo_switch_game_file_sizes?start=20

Sub-HD resolutions were very common on PS3/360, and the games you describe like LA Noire are outliers, and even then LA still has superior textures and shadowing on Switch versus PS3, not to mention a far higher resolution when docked. If a dev cheaps out and decides to compress their game more than necessary, that's not the system's fault; there was no good reason for Rayman to be crunched down to 2.9GB. Devs just make bad decisions sometimes.

Also don't forget a lot of the "extra space" on PS3 games was taken up by redundant data; storing the same assets multiple times on the same disc to improve seek times since PS3's Blu Ray drive was so slow. Audio quality on PS3 will also be impacted by the system's RAM limitations; less than 256MB for all non-graphical data.

But anyway, isn't the thread topic graphics, not storytelling?

Regardless, exclusives can not be used because it omits any sort of objective analysis when doing cross-platform comparisons. We don't use exclusives when were also comparing against mobile platforms so the same should apply to consoles to make a fair analysis of hardware execution performance ... 

Exclusives do not represent equal grounds between hardware, only multiplatform games can do that realistically. I realize that there are certain eccentrics when it comes to hardware specific optimizations so to keep the playing field level we have multiple sets of benchmarks (multiple games) to measure hardware performance ... 

let's not forget just because a game looks  better then everything on the hardware doesn't mean it's not capable, i think uncharted, uncharted 2 and killzone 2 are proof of that, they were declared impossible on 360, it took a while but 360 was able to match or surpass those games.

My memory is the 360 and PS3 dipped just below 720p sometimes, 880x720 there abouts as the absolute maximum drop but most around 1024x700 when they weren't actual 720p (1280x720) and quite a few ps3 games were 1080p but with dynamic resolutions in play. Wipeout, Stardust, Virtual Tennis, Ridge Racer were 1080p and a few others mainly PSN games. I don't think either PS3 or 360 had drops to 368p like Xenoblade on Switch which is between ED and SD resolution. I could be wrong but I don't remember any  game dropping to such a low resolution which is half the pixel count approx of the lowest drops I can remember of the 2 720p consoles.

My point if you can't store the graphic data then you can't show it either. Storage size is a factor in games. Many android games lack graphic detail not because they can't handle it but they just haven't got room for it. Some PS2 games clearly have better assets and varied textures thanks to its DVD optical disc compared to a heavily compressed 100MB android game. The android game might have a greater resolution and a better frame rate but the graphics can be simplified with more often repeated textures. 

I don't think it dev's cheaping out it's dev's trying to find a balance of what file size is acceptable for the end user. They have to weigh up performance with the reality that a large file size may prevent many people buying the game. You may say its wrong to make Rayman Legends so small a file size but thats great when you can store more games on a Switch. You can take the Switch outside and have a choice of games to play and the only compromise is a bit of slowdown here and there and a slightly inferior image which is more noticeable when docked.

I don't think the audio would be too bad on ps3 with regard memory. The audio hardware is meant to be exceptionally good which I think is a common theme with all sony hardware, decent DAC's, DMA and with the ps3 one cell processor pretty much dedicated to uncompressing, compressing on the fly and some decent cache built-in. The PS3 has always been pretty exceptional for audio.  A comparison with 360 often showed the PS3 sound to be much better. The dolby 5.1 of the 360 not only had less channels, lossy sound but I feel missed some of the detail present in the ps3 probably due to fitting it onto a standard dvd disc instead of bluray. The earlier generation was an easy win for the original xbox with its dedicated 5.1 chip over ps2 which had 5.1 unlike gamecube but seemed much more limited with in-game surround effects even if the music scores were equally good.

Alan Wake was 540p on 360, Homefront was 576p on both PS3 and 360, Tales of Vesperia 576p on PS3. Tony Hawk Project 8, 585p. Tekken 6, 576p on PS3. The list goes on; sub-HD games were abundant on PS3 and 360. Xenoblade 2 is clearly not a well optimized game, probably because, as we recently found out, most of Monolith was tied up assisting with Breath of the Wild.

When you have 32GB of cart space and the same of hard drive space, plus support for expandable memory up to a terabyte, Rayman being 2.9GB was simply a bad call on the part of Ubisoft.

PS3 did have an audio advantage versus the Xbox 360, but at the end of the day, it had to keep sound data in a tiny pool of memory by modern standards, less than a quarter of a gigabyte had to be shared between audio, OS, game logic, etc.

Honestly, there's already games on Switch better than anything on PS3 graphically; TLOU may be a great feat of technical engineering and art design, but ultimately its running on less than 500MB of RAM and a GPU from 2006, so it is not technically demanding.