Comparing the ps3 to 360 is a difficult task in many ways because they both excel in different areas however yes you can see some advantages in ps3 over 360. Firstly the ps3 had a wider range of 1080p games partly due to more dedicated video memory and partly due to using the cell processors to assist in graphic data processing to provide gpu performance capable of 1080p. Next you have wide support for 3D which wasn't possible on 360 again thanks to the cell processors making the creation of 2 images in parallel much easier. Lastly many games like the Resistance series make heavy use of the cell for clever graphic effects including wind physics effects, rain, lighting etc which you don't see on 360.

PS3 is split into 2 pools of memory, main system memory of 256MB and video memory of 256MB so same overall memory as 360 except for no 10MB of high speed memory that the 360 has. If you want to load memory completely with data it takes about a 1/44 of a second on 360, about a 1/75 of a second on ps3 but about 1/6 of a second on Switch. I'm just making the point that Switch has far lower memory bandwidth than ps3 and 360 and yet has much larger main memory so effectively the advantage of more memory is much reduced. Memory bandwidth is a fixed limit you cannot move any more data than the maximum bandwidth limit of the memory which is effectively much less than on ps3 or 360.

I don't think this is any surprise despite the ease of developing on Switch so far we are seeing a very low performance level overall often with simple games with fairly basic cell shaded graphics struggling with frame rates or missing anti-aliasing or low resolution etc. As more games are released we will get a more accurate picture but at the moment like wii u its performing below initial expectations. 

The performance of the Switch docked is never going to match the wide range of ambitious games we have seen on ps3 and 360 not just for performance/technical reasons but also commercial reasons. It may well be able to show a graphic effect here or there which they weren't capable of because of their older graphics hardware just as the wii u did. That is my expectation based on the evidence of the hardware and the  Switch games so far.

I think since the N64 it's rather clear that AA isn't missing because of hardware on the machine it's not there by choice to keep the image clear, but you are talking about low resolutions when the system is pushing handheld games at 720p which was the resolution the vast majority of ps3/360 titles actually ran at, so I mean you are talking about the portable batter powered option of the switch doing the same job that those machines did, if you look at the portable 720p/60 of Fast RMX or MK8D and think that would be possible on the Last, Last gen consoles I think you're very much mistaken.

But then again... you talk about Wind, Rain and Lighting of a single ps3 game not having appeared on the X360? I mean you have to understand how that sounds? if you see a game like RDR or GTAV's weather on both machines and think that rain is something which is only possible because of the processor in the ps3?

But yeah like I said if you're thinking the Switch is missing out in things like the resolution department when a greater % of it's software to date hits 1080p than the X1 but you're looking at it and thinking "that's worse than a X360" then I'll just leave you to think that but would ask that you actually think about the number of titles on the 360/ps3 which were running natively at 1080p before you repeat that to others just in case someone might make the mistake of thinking you're right.

It's way to early for such bold claim. The very first game you're, unintentionally, talking about is Skyrim. Lets see how it performs in sales and gameplay terms.

Hardly a bold claim at all if anything that should be the normal view until proven wrong based on the evidence but agree we need to see more games to get the full picture. 

Nothing yet really to compare.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/release-date/available/switch/metascore

Just snakepass and lego city both games that don't require much in gpu and cpu resources.

It's really of the currently announced titles Skyrim and Payday 2 that could be compared to other versions. Both can run with sub ps3/360 hardware as they do work on windows tablets with low performance gpu's so we should be able to see where the Switch versions sit on that scale. Yes you can play those games with inferior graphics to ps3 and 360 so running on Switch is not the challenge but achieving a good frame rate and decent graphic detail is. Also how much will they cut out to fit on cartridge which is another factor.

Ew, no.

If it was an exclusive spin-off GTA just for Switch then maybe.