The end?

1) How are you viewing pictures?  On a phone or small print or screen or most casual viewing, you're not going to detect differences anything other than huge differences in image quality.  Even under more critical conditions, people have done blind comparison tests for years and found much less difference than might be expected between all sorts of cameras.

On a similar note, look at the m43 forum where many say that there's no image quality difference between m43 and FF.  There's a 2:1 sensor area difference between m43 and FF. The relative difference between powershots and phones can be the same if not smaller.

2) Are you trying to freeze action or blur moving water?  Your phone is not likely to know and few have shutter speed controls.

3) Do you want shallow depth of field? Phones can simulate background blur, but cameras do it better.

3) Remember that at the same framing, depth of field, shutter speed and subject lighting, noise will be the same regardless of sensor size.

4) Lenses can be better on cameras. If nothing else, larger sensors require less enlargement to get to the same picture size, so a lower lp/mm lens can yield a better result.

5) Cameras can have a much wider range of focal lengths. Digital zoom doesn't work as well. OTOH, some phones are multiples lenses, lessening the camera's advantage.

It would be nice if some powershots went wider than 24mm FF equivalent.

6) There's no reason a camera can't have the same computational photography capability as a phone has.  Even if the camera doesn't, it can shoot bursts and you can do computational photography as well or better than a phone with software.

7) Cameras can do much better on moving subjects - sports, wildlife, toddlers, etc.

8) Good technique is easier on a camera, at least for me. I have a harder time holding a phone still, which matters both for limiting blur and not changing framing.

People tend to not be as careful with phone photography as with cameras - composition, technique, etc.