I have voted for "A minor leap over 7th gen"

But I really believe that the NS is today under exploited. It is useless to compare a port from PS3/XBOX360, obviously the optimisation for the switch will be superficial and won't show what the console of Nintendo could do if the game had been made from ground and optimized for the machine. Until now so far, we have seen only 3 heavy and really exclusive games on the NS which can be used for fair graphical comparison :

- Super Mario Odysee
- Xenoblade C 2
- ARMS

Just don't forget that the NS had 3 GB DDR4 of ram, it is far above the 7th generation.
The NS could potentially display almost like the first games of the XBOX1 and PS4, and these 2 consoles are also today under exploited imo.

Metroid Prime 4 and Bayonetta 3 might be a stunning surprise for many people who underestimate the Switch. I hope it will be.

It does look last gen in certain aspects on the Switch.
In others it's a big step up, especially the GPU accelerated particle effects which have great lighting, shadowing and physics.

The WiiU didn't have a "design flaw" per-say.
Nintendo and AMD knew full well what was happening on that SoC and went with it, despite the various caveats... And despite that, it's still a fairly capable chip considering it's transistor and TDP budget, all things considered.

Happens every gen. People used to go mental over "bits". - Then it was Polygon counts, then it was flops.
Whatever number (Theoretical or otherwise) people can grab to justify their purchase decision and shine it in the best possible light is what people will do.

Anyone who thought the Gamecube was inferior to the Playstation 2 simply didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

The other issue is that the WiiU wasn't exactly a massive success, it's marketshare remained small, meaning that developers and publishers were less likely to invest in technology to shine the WiiU in the best possible light.

Nintendo has also been conservative on the fidelity front for a few generations now, which is the same approach Blizzard Entertainment takes... And thus would prefer to push Art to give their games a great presentation.

Digital Foundry is still the best source of information we have... Sure, they will stuff up, they are only human after-all... And they will get called out on that when it happens.
Anandtech for instance is an amazing outlet for tech information... Probably one of the better places on the internet. Yet I have corrected their writers on a ton of different occasions on some of their articles, forcing them to make rewrites.

You would be surprised how far back you can scale a game if you set your mind to it.
I mean... It will look like ass.

For example... When testing out/working on shaders for Oblivion and Fallout 3, I was running those games on PC hardware that was inferior to the Original Xbox in some areas. - There was no lighting, shadowing, textures were blurry, no distant land, resolution was low and I was pushing 20fps if I was lucky.

But it was still achievable.

The games pretty much speak for themselves. Even games like Doom on Switch portable still gives any 7th gen game a run for it's money.

There is allot less. I mean allot less baked details on the Switch version of Doom than in God of War 3 on the PS3.

Name me a game on Playstation 3/Xbox 360 with particles that have their own individual lighting and shadowing... Those consoles couldn't handle a ton of dynamic details, they just didn't have the memory or performance.

Now imagine if Doom used a ton of baked details and took full advantage of the Switch's FP16 capabilities... I think this discussion would be very different.

I think people tend to confuse the visual presentation of a game with actual graphics far to often these days.

GTA5 was built first and foremost as a 7th gen console game.
It had new effects and improved assets tacked on later.

Flops aren't important and are not an accurate representation of a piece of silicons complete capabilities.

CPU is an out-of-order design with a fairly short pipeline if I recall correctly... Which means it can do more work per megahertz than the Xbox 360.

Yes. And we knew it sat between the 7th and 8th gen as soon as we knew it was Tegra powered.
Once they revealed the lower clocks, that never changed either.

It is possible.
Physics was one of the stronger points of the Playstation 3 actually.

Wut

Do we really know how much ram mario uses? not every game is gonna  max the system specs, unless it's very ambitious technically, and mario doesn't really look it, zelda to me on wiiu is technically more ambitious then mario IMO, there are games on ps4, and xb1 that only probably  need 1GB, when they have 8gb, we just don't know, if i were a betting man, i would bet mario can run on 360/ps3 at 600p, with a great port job.

That's because it's a vita screenshot. I always maintained Swifch graphically was just the successor to the Vita and this proves it. 

It's on the vita. The Switch is basically a next gen vita in terms of graphics. 

It's the successor to the 3DS and Wii U.

I fail to see what the Vita has to do with this. 

I said in terms of graphics it's like the successor to the Vita. Rather than the ps3/360.

So you're saying that nothing on Switch looks better than this?

I mean, it was pretty for the time, but I can list at least 10 games that look better on Switch. lol

Hear hear.

Also, Dialgamarine, the PS3 would die if it tried to run BotW. No problem? Really? LOL