Yes, we would have waaaay more titles with 60 fps. =/

The Problem is that Nvidia is about 28% "Stronger" than AMD. That means 1 Nvidia = 1.3 AMD. 

You cant compare Them. And akso the Tech Inside the Switch is Just 2 years old. Now Take the ps4 xbox1 Tech as comparison. Its really hard to predict the real horsepower of the Switch.

Played Doom on Switch, didn't feel inferior to the PS4-version at all.

Well. Those are Nvidia Gflops my friend. Not comparable with amd Flops.

510 AMD Gflops is the answer.

Theres a certain amount of truth to what you say..... nvidia flops usually do have like a 10-15% edge in real world applications.
However your still left with a Switch thats atleast under 1/4 th of the PS4 slim in terms of performance.

honestly it do not matter, you cannot compare AMD graphics 1 to 1 with Nividia........look online you can find many Nvidia cards with less Flops than AMD and out perform AMD cards, so no matter what the Switch Numbers no one will find an exact AMd card to compare it perfectly........everyone only gives assumptions

in a PC environment with generalised APIs etc, in a console environment the specific strengths of the architecture can be utilized to a higher degree

Playstation 3 wasn't exactly using filtering extensively either.
Even many Xbox One/Playstation 4 games could use it more.

A better CPU would go a long way, it would mean better physics effects, particle effects, more+better A.I and general better interactivity with the game world.
Double the Jaguars performance still isn't very impressive performance though...

Bright side is, relative to it's GPU performance, the Switch is a better balanced machine.

Er no.
And yes we can compare them... PC has been comparing nVidia and AMD/ATI GPU's for decades. - We just can't use flops to do it.

AMD and nVidia flops are identical. A flop is a flop. - The math doesn't automagically become something different once you drop an nVidia GPU in a system.

Problem is, games need more than just single precision floating point math... And because of such, nVidia has invested more in other parts of the Graphics Processor that helps drive that.
When it comes to compute however, AMD GPU's start to show what they are capable of, beating the nVidia equivalent.

There is a reason why AMD GPU's were the preferred choice for miners.

There are AMD GPU's with less flops that beats an AMD GPU with more flops. It's not an nVidia thing.

More 60 fps titles would be nice, but games in general would still me much the same.

I get to play more games in 60 fps thanks to the X1X but I can't say its changing the way I feel about these game in a significant way.

People often make that argument but I feel aspects like better physics, AI and world interactivity have more to do with the game design. Hence, developers can do plenty with the Jaguar CPUs in that regard but just don't bother. A lot of those aspects still feel like last gen content because that's just the way games are generally made.

I mean look at Just Cause 4, that's really showcase of what the Jaguar CPU is capable of.

The X1X has 30% more CPU power and it appears to make a fairly big difference. So double the CPU power of Jaguar CPU would be significant.

I don't think there is a CPU and GPU imbalance on the PS4 and X1. They're designed to run technically demanding games at 30 fps. 60 fps is possible if developers build around that and games can still look impressive at 60 fps.

Hypothetically if the Switch had an upgrade that simply doubled GPU power, that would make a world of difference when it comes to resolution and improving performance in some games. Games like Wolfenstein II and Doom would actually stay at 720p!