in terms of graphical fidelity PS4 punches way above 7850 can achieve on windows PC. closed Architecture helps a lot. PSvita is the best example of this, I think it shared same hardware as iphone 5*  (PowerVR MP something) and vita was far superior to anything iphone produced graphically. And I wont suprised at all if next gaming hardware from Sony has custom sony SoC design based on AMD zen and vega to better support their rendering pipelines and library. 

The only issue will be game delivery, and storage, HD texture and assets require lots of space.. even PS3 exclusive were well above 24gb..

I don't think a portable is on the cards. Note I said 'think' which means I'm not 100% certain.

The future for me is quite straight forward. Once the PS5 releases (with full BC), the games on the PS5, with all the extra bells and whistles, will run on the Pro at lower resolutions, maybe checkerboared in some cases and even 1080p in others. The PS4 will also run these games but likely in 900p because of having to deal with all those extra GPU intensive bells and whistles.

I'm not even sure there will be ANY PS5 exclusives, at least for two or three years. Sony will measure this against the continued success of the PS4 and Pro. If the market continues strongly for these two consoles then they'll keep full BC for longer, if they slacken, full BC will end sooner rather than later.

There's also a good chance that the Pro will become the defacto 'last gen' console (in relation to the PS5), BUT even though that may shorten BC a little for the PS4, it won't necessarily shorten it for the Pro. It all depends on how the Pro performs as the main 'last gen' console. It could be too much of a risk to potentially annoy the biggest Playstation market at that point, which of course is the PS4.

Because of the architecture dude. There are games on Switch better than PS3. Let's just take some last gen ports. Switch is running the special edition of Skyrim at 900P. PS3 can't even run Skyrim properly. Switch can Dark Souls at 1080P 30FPS. PS3 can run it at 720P and sub 20FPS. Switch uses a modern chipset. Switches CPU core per core is better than PS4's CPU. You don't get how this stuff works. Also I imagine your logic is "better graphics" = realism which is a fallacy. Mario+Rabbids is very technically impressive and using the Snowdrop engine. 

Couldn't they duct tape 4 Switches together?

@ bolded Irrelevant really - that's about what PS4 is on the paper, when you look at architecture (though it's somewhere betwen GCN 1 and 2) and numbers - and we're comparing here one PC part with another PC part, not actual future PS4 portable SoC with PS4.

PS3 has 256MB + 256MB memory (512 total) switch has 4GB right? memory goes a long way into making better textures and graphics possible, so yeah... 

Also the Wii-U was technically better then the PS3 and the switch is also running games better then the Wii-U, the switch is definitely without a doubt graphically a better more powerful console then the PS3.

A much more expensive Sony handheld trying to compete with Nintendo. Yeah, pretty sure we know how that would end.

Killzone, uncharted, the last of us, gta v, God of war 3 and many more beat anything on the Switch. 

*Sigh*

I know it's more powerful than those consoles but the experience it gives is similar--unless you can give me some examples. It darn sure isn't on par with the other current gen consoles.

I did say "more or less".

*Edit* to elaborate, I mean the experiences those consoles provide are akin to the experiences of that period. For example, the DS is waaaaay more powerful than the N64. The GBA is 32 bits compared to the 16-bit SNES. It still felt like having a portable N64 or SNES.

There we other devices like the Turbo Xpress that was running the exact same games as the Turbografx 16 but, in general, I stand by my original statement.