There are many hardware differences between a PS3 and Playstastion 4 outside of performance, aimed at improving efficiency and visuals, many of which the Switch has or sometimes even exceed.

* Polymorph Engines. (Tessellation)
* Shader model 6.7 (PS3 was SM3, PS4 SM6.5 )
* Vertex Shader 5.0
* Geometry Shaders
* Support for higher resolution (16k textures) - Not to be confused with display resolution.
* Compute Shaders.

And more. It's not just about raw throughput, but about hardware feature sets and efficiency.

So calling the Switch a "Playstation 3 Pro" is highly disingenuous, it's nothing like it from a high or low level.

PS3 had a Geforce 7 class GPU with a core layout of: 24:8:24:8 (Pixel shaders: vertex shaders: texture mapping units: render output units)
Core: 550Mhz. Memory bandwidth: 20.8GB/s

It GPU core is like-for-like of the Geforce 7 7800 GTX 512MB... But with less than half the bandwidth and half the ROPS.
7800GTX: 24:8:24:16 (Pixel shaders: vertex shaders: texture mapping units: render output units)
Core: 550mhz. Memory bandwidth: 54.4GB/s.

The 7600GT has half the functional units with a core layout of 12:5:12:8 @560Mhz and 22.6GB/s of Ram.

In non-memory bandwidth (I.E. Shader heavy) scenarios, the PS3 should be able to get fairly close to the 7800GTX, but once you bog it down with Alpha effects, it will come up short.

The Xbox 360's GPU was more powerful, it was the CPU where the PS3 had a commanding lead.

The Xbox 360's GPU was closely related to the Radeon 2900, but with a lower core clock and memory bandwidth.

AMD Backported the Radeon 2900 design for Microsoft and made it a custom chip.

I was only talking about the 80w model, the highest-end configuration.

The 3060 with 6GB isn't much better.

It's nVidia's M.O.

You might be on the money, but without confirmation it's just a hypothesis.

No. It's literally a worthless measure.

RDNA3 on a flop to flop basis will perform worse than an RDNA2 part.. Because AMD introduced a dual-issue pipeline.

That means it can "theoretically" have Twice the flops, but it will never have twice the performance as it can only issue a second instruction when it can extract a second instruction from the wavefront.
And when that is unable to happen, you will only get "Half the flops".

This is the same wall AMD found itself with prior VLIW/Terascale designs and why they opted for Graphics Core Next in the first place, it then becomes very driver/compiler heavy.

This is the dumbed down version of course.

The Series S actually has a better GPU than the Playstation 4 Pro.

Teraflop numbers you see floating around are all theoretical, not real world benchmarked numbers.

The Steam Deck comparison is really silly.

1. The Steam Deck, as impressive as it is, runs games through a compatibility layer (Proton) that provides on average a 10% performance hit. Valve has done a lot toward reducing that hit in optimized titles, but basically any game they haven't fine tuned for is going to get a 10% hit on the platform versus running directly in  Linux. This is a software problem, not a hardware one. If games were developed directly for Linux/Steam OS, the Steam Deck would gain a significant performance boost in many of them. 

2. By the time the Switch 2 releases, the Steam deck will be almost three years old, and we'll probably be talking about an incoming Steam Deck 2 release at that point. 

3. The Steam Deck has about the same power demands as a Nintendo Switch (maxing out at 15W tdp.) 

4. Despite looking like one, the Steam Deck is not a closed platform. It runs games that had to be optimized for a wide-range of hardware. 

A Switch 2 released on a 5nm process node is going to get efficiency gains, by the simple fact that 5nm provides about 30% performance-per-watt over  7nm. This can be utilized to reduce cooling (while giving the same performance as a Steam Deck), improve performance while requiring as much cooling, or a little bit of both. 

Things often don't make sense if you don't know basic details about them. 

Yes exactly. 

Saying "a Steam Deck can't even beat a PS4" is misleading. The Steam is a two way street. You're never going to see it's power fully unleashed probably because no one is going to make a game that is expressly made for the Steam Deck's hardware and really code down to the metal to optimize everything for it. Then there is performance lost with the Proton layer and all that among other factors. 

That's the price you pay to basically be a PC ... the upside is you get broad compatibility with hundreds/thousands of existing games. Which is the only way that product can work, you can't expect Valve or Lenovo or Asus to make games like Nintendo, Sony, MS, etc. and get 3rd party support like bespoke platform does. 

Steam runs 7 at 720p with lower quality settings. I still don't get how this matches the ps4. If the argument is the differences don't matter, no issues given that is subjective. But it is entirely false to say it matches from a technical perspective. And 720p in handheld is fine, on a large TV, no thanks. I'll stick with my home console/pc.

I still think we are confusing matching and if that means no differences or if people mean they don't personally care about the differences.  Those are two completely different arguments.

By the way, is the thread title correct?
I was told the location was Gamescom.
What is the difference between this and Eurocom?

Where did you hear Eurocom? There is no convention or relevant company by that name.

Edit: Wait what, why does the thread title say Eurocom?