A lot more powerful?

Anyways, GPD is a windows pc basically. The withcer wss not ported to run on it. That would mean CDPr actuaoly go and make a version of their game specifically for it. It's just running the standard windows version of the game. 

Don't take my word for it tho, I'm just saying don't get your hopes up.

On another note, here is someghinh consider; if they wanted it bad enough, the devs could make the witcher 3 (or at least some version of it) run on even the PS3/360. 

You're right my choice of wording "ported" wasn't accurate and yes they could run some coding magic to actually port to last gen hardware. 

My point is, that won't be necessary.
1) NS is already fully supported by the middleware so cost to port is very low.
2) NS is defintely quite a bit more powerful than the specs given for GPD in the gaf thread. (intel atom quad vs tegra X2 6 to 8 cores, Intel GPU vs nvidia, faster RAM, etc). 

Its not about getting hopes up. I'm quite realistic. Games are going to look and run very similar to what we see now on Xbox One. I'd bet on the portable screen you won't even see a difference whereas on TV you will as the larger screen will make the resolution and other differences more noticeable. 

Tagging.

We are mostly in agreement.

But to be clear, this thing is not as powerful as the XB1. The power difference  between it and the XB1 would be similar to the power difference between the XB1 and the PS4. And that's just talking processing power. Things like memory size and bandwidth can also make things a little worse too. 3/3.2GB of available game ram compared to 5GB on the XB1. Even if devs wanted, they couldn't possibly fit identically rezzed textures on the switch as you would see in the XB1.

But this isnt all bad, cause as 720p console it would be a killer. And I personally don't think there is anything wrong with 720p. Playing on the mobile screen it would look ridiculously good as you have said, but when output to the large screen we should see an image that is all round softer than the XB1 but still look good. 

I think the best thing about the Switch is that all its development would be tailor made for its mobile screen. And it's performance would be built for 720p. So when its running to a TV it would just be upscaled. If it's treated as a 720p console, devs can work wonders with its hardware. 

That's basically my thoughts as well. Though I don't think the RAM will be the bottleneck, I'm betting the GPU is the difference maker. Eitherway, I'm positive it can and will have some of the best 3rd party support Nintendo has seen in many generations as long as

1) Nintendo moves to solely support NS going forward. Personally, I think they will announce a ton of games for NS and stop putting anything new on 3DS this coming year.

2) NS has a solid launch. By solid I see sellouts at launch and at least through May getting to ~5MM by then. 

If we see this kind of appeal, then in June, nearly every multiplat game will be PS4/XB1/NS. Save only the biggest games that were way too far into development to put resources to NS by the time they got dev kits very late 2016. Unless NS is showing Wii-like demand, then even those will come.

Now, I clamour on about the 3rd party support only because I'm a cheap bastard and would rather not buy games on multiple consoles. Personally, Nintendo alone is enough for me to own a NS and I already own a X1. But, with the middle-ware support NS will have, I can't see a logical reason any business wouldn't port the game over even if it only sold 1/2 it does on other consoles. That's a lot of profit to be made.

Though I do think that once its out, people will switch over for the portability functionality alone. Those of you to never have owned a WiiU don't understand how awesome the off-tv functionality is with the gamepad.

The "supposed" Pascal microarchitecture featured in the Nintendo Switch has a few nuggets over the current home consoles GPU ...

OP should also know that CPU and MEM configuration is all speculation until launch, even the GPU too! 

Guess it should also be noted that on thr latest Switch leak its ssid that the Switch isn't even using Pascal architecture. And instead using Nvidias Maxwell architecture. 

Which puts it in shield territory as far as power goes. 

I'll wait until more tech journalists insist that such is true ... 

That being said, the Maxwell microarchitecture is still arguably more advanced from a feature set standpoint than the Volcanic Islands microarchitecture featured in the HD twins. Conservative rasterization and fragment shader execution ordering are huge selling points for optimizations on the Switch. Other enhancements to functionality includes target independent multisampling, coverage to color conversion, post-depth coverage and multisample coverage override ... 

If Switch were using shrinked Maxwell then it would be too sad to be the case since SHIELD console struggled with ports of native sub-HD twin games like Metal Gear Rising and Resident Evil 5 LOL ... 

Yes, we should wait for official info, bevause  right now and switch related info is literally a crap shoot. For everyone thing you can say, there will be something else said that proves otherwise. 

And the Maxwell architecture can be as advanced as it wants, it's still not going to hold a candle to the HD twins. I don't know how anyone looks at this, if the XB1 struggles to run games at 900p, people somehow think the Switch with around half the power of the XB1 will somehow match running the same games the XB1 is running? What kimda sorcery is that? Even if running at 720p, a lot of concessions would have to be made. And if it's using the Maxwell architecture, all this talk of half the power of the XB1 wouldn't even be true, that can only happen if it were using Pascal which would have allowed it run at higher clocks while churning out less heat. 

Anyways, we will find out soon enough.