Using the PC as an example in that context is a little disingenuous.

A game ported to the PC is generally optimized primarily for the software ecosystem, like the API's and other eccentricities of the platform rather than any individual hardware piece.

A console game is generally taken a step farther than that, more of the non-standard functional capabilities of the hardware is leveraged to eek out more performance or add new effects. Not always. But more often than not.

Case in point... The Xbox One's GPU is roughly comparable to a Radeon 7770. But the Xbox One will always be able to outperform it when developers leverage the eSRAM for deferred render targets, if that GPU existed on the PC, no developer worth a pinch of salt would bother with such a scheme.

Comparisons can always be made.
But the more the two apples begin to differ, the more components you need to take note of in said comparisons.

I mean... Take a game like Gears of War and compare it against Borderlands.
One is Cartoony... And one goes for a stylized realistic approach, in short they are completely different artistically.
However... They share much of the same technology and in most scenario's would probably be relatively equivalent in hardware demands all things considered.

Take note of when those games launched on the Playstation 3.
And then take note of when the Switch released.

Resolution and framerate isn't everything there is about graphics/performance/hardware capability.

We seem to keep falling into the fallacy of conflating ease of development with technical power. The fact that FEAR's graphics were downgraded on the PS3 from the 360 and PC versions does not prove anything about the power of the PS3. It proves that in 2007 developers were struggling with the PS3's different architecture. Microsoft made the og XBox and the 360 to be extremely similar to PCs, which made it easier for developers to develop games in tandem on the PC and the XBox or to port a PC game to the XBox. This gen Sony is following a similar strategy after going different came back to bite them last gen. This makes comparisons between individual games a little easier between the PS4 and XB1 this gen, since the hardware isn't as radically different. The WiiU and Switch are very different architectures from everything else on the market this gen and last gen. What we see from ports where the proper amount of effort and time was put in was that both can run 360 games with better graphics than either the 360 or PS3. Games like Trine 2 and Need for Speed Most Wanted prove this. Both were early Wii U games that were clear upgrades over their 360 and PS3 counterparts. They specifically stated that Trine 2 could not run on the 360 or the PS3 at the same level of fidelity it achieved on the Wii U. The problem is very few developers spared the time, money, or manpower to properly rework the games for the Wii U's architecture.  The Switch, by comparison, is not only more powerful than the Wii U, but is a success, making it more lucrative and worthwhile to port to, and easier to develop for, lessening the amount of resources and time needed to make a proper port.

There is no game on the PS3 or 360 that look as good as Mario Odyssey, Kingdom Battle, Xenoblade 2, or Zelda for that matter. Now maybe some may prefer the realistic look of Uncharted or TLoU, but graphically they are not as advanced as the titles I mentioned. Lets not mix up facts with preference. Hell Fast RMX in its current form on the Switch isn't possible on either of the last gen consoles.

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 ... 

Yea i just don't get how people can look at a game, and say yup that can't run that hardware, when both hardware have disadvantages and advantages, unless we get those developers and see what they can achieve with that hardware it's a pointless comparison. 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. I think the console that clearly gives you the best experience in most games is superior, because thats all matter in the end.

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

I watched a digital foundry video on Bayonetta 2 a few days ago. Apparently (if I remember correctly) it's going to be 720p on the Switch and the framerate, while better than the Wii U version, is still all over the place.

They said Bayonetta 1 would likely be the same...

Different developers do different things and art style is key. While looking back, I think that The Last of Us is the absolute peak of what was available on PS3 or 360, yet I think I'd say Breath of the Wild has gone above and beyond it.

Another thing to note is you have to remember that as time goes on, we see better things from every platform. A bunch of early titles are very much similar to late-gen titles from the other platform when developers are more comfortable with the hardware.

Judge the Switch in 3 or 4 years time when we see what the machine can really do.

Both versions have their problems, I don't see a definitive winner between these two.

The lower draw distance and the shaky performance in some pursuits don't even matter in the main part of the game: the Switch version profits from the higher resolution, better textures, better shadows and some other FX enhancements in every briefing in the police department, every investigation of a crime scene and every interrogation of a suspect.

That said, I still prefer the good old PC version of L.A. Noire. Even with its shitty 30-fps-lock it is still better than any other version, including the PS4- and XBO-version.

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?