Sure.  And Doom on the Switch is a generation behind PC and ps4.  Frankly the switch version looks Ike shit.  Digital Foundry has the game dropping as low as 540p at 30 fps when docked...  

Exactly while switch can do some ps4 games they end up looking like trash ps3 can probably do 99% of switch games much better then switch can do ps4  games which let's face it despite switch bring a huge success most developers just thought it wasn't worth it

A generation behind the PS4 is the PS3, and Doom on Switch is more technically advanced than anything on PS3, whether you like how it looks or not. 

No way can a PS3/360 run Tears of the Kingdom at 60 or games like Diablo III at 4K ... the Switch can, it's basically proven on video. The chip is way beyond a PS3/360/Wii U IMO. 

Nintendo just wants people to pay up more $$$ to buy a Switch 2 to get those features IMO (same reason they also won't give people GameCube/Wii games on Switch Online ... they are going to force people to buy a Switch 2 for that even though there's no reason a Switch 1 can't do it). Which is probably business wise the correct call (I would do the same thing if I was Nintendo president, matching Switch 1 sales will be tough enough as is without a COVID surge in sales for 2 years, having Switch 1 models that could do 4K would just make trying to sell a Switch 2 upgrade more of a headache).

Unfortunately I don't think we'll ever know what the max the Tegra X1, especially the one inside Mariko and OLED models can do. Another casualty of COVID basically creating a weird time line. If COVID doesn't happen then I think the Switch has a more regular sales curve where sales start to diminish by year 4/5 and Nintendo pulls the trigger on a proper Switch Pro/4K which they just borked into the Switch OLED instead. 

You seem to think being technical advanced makes the game look better, Doom on Switch wouldn't even be a top 5 best looking game on the 360/ps3. Once image quality 

What looks better is a matter of personal opinion.

I'm talking about which is actually more graphically capable or demanding.

That's what those two posters do (errr, is it really even 2?), when they get pinned against a technical fact they just spin it as they personally don't like it or they play on such and such a GPU, as if that negates the facts by moving goal posts. 

Anyone that suggests that Nintendo isn't using the worst hardware imaginable like the Switch is literally just another $99 Game Boy and they get triggered hard. They don't even really know their Nintendo history at all, they don't understand that Iwata's Nintendo for example was very different from Yamauchi's Nintendo and that Furukawa's Nintendo could also be completely different as well. It's just lazy analysis.

By the way the whole premise of the Switch being somehow some crap hardware that Nintendo chose is false by a data leak at Nintendo, from that data leak we know the original concept for NX used worse hardware with a 480p screen only (we have even have even leaked schematics) ... they opted against this and released a more powerful system, choosing at the time pretty much the top of the line mobile chip available to them. 

I don't think image quality is debatable  once you are at 720p it's rough and anything below that US ugly. 

Everyone's personal mileage varies though, I never had an issue playing Doom on Switch.

I doesn't really matter what you think sub HD was ugly even back into ps3/360 days resolution and framerate is the most important thing when it comes to graphics.