No, this is incorrect. Power consumption increases quadratically with the clock frequency! A good GFLOP/watt ratio is very well possible with a very low clocked GPU or CPU.

Oh and btw. Mdave also showed that the CPU throttles the GPU and vice versa. His tests give a good reason also for the 1Ghz clock rate of the CPU. It seems that Nintendo just fixed the clocks of the CPU and GPU at a reasonable frequency that the system can handle maintain for a longer time without throttling.

If you read the thread, it seems we are still quite a bit away from having a whole picture of whats going on inside the switch. Nintendo typically does quite of customization to the chips. Even a 16nm process isnt out of the question. That would give room for quite a bit more souce.

*rises hand*
Question: is it posible for the Switch to be a little more powerful than the Wii U, but having noticeable better effects, like particles, lighting, even textures, that will make games look a lot better than Wii U games?

Of course everything shares the processing power, unless you have extra processors doing said effects. However, a lighter OS (on the tasks done in the background) and not needing to run two screens simultanously would free some resources for the effects. You also could stream the textures from the card. Working around bottlenecks would also improve performance.

If spinning it that way makes you feel better. But there are such things called NDAs, so if NV said this, it means Nintendo allowed them to say this. Either way, it'd be a disappointment and would make me think really hard about the purchase, most probably making me wait for a redesign. If Switch is pased on Pascal, I'm getting it as soon as I can get my hands on it.

The most likely scenario seems to be that the switch is very similar in power to NVidias Shield. This is already quite a bit above WiiU, even undocked.

It is possible (though not likely) that Nintendo chose a better fabrication process (16nm). In that case the GPU would cause less heat and there would be room for quite a bit of additional things, like an additional SM. In that case Switch GPU would have about 500GFlops and therefore be quite potent.

The number of available cores of the CPU is also unclear at the mom. It could be that all 4 cores are available for the devs and there are additional CPUs just for the OS. Or it could be that the 4 cores are shared between the OS and gaming.

Again .. Pascal or Maxwell does not really make the difference (see my previous comment). Please just stop using these buzzwords if you have no idea what is behind them.

Actually you are one that trying to spin things here buy accusing that Nintendo somehow lying (lol), how you can say they lying when they still didnt said anything!? Clear fact is that Nintendo still didn't said anything about Switch hardware, just Nvidia.

Just to be clear, when docked, it should be at least twice as faster as the Wii U, so it will do 1080p... 

Before any of you have a meltdown, here are the X1's specs... 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8811/nvidia-tegra-x1-preview/2

I am well aware of the laws of conservation and thermodynamics. (Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred or transformed.)

And FYI. We likely have our wires crossed.

You cannot pull 25w at the wall. Because it's only pulling 20w. That is what it was recorded at.
You can't consume 20w of power at the SoC level if you are consuming 20w of power at the Wall due to energy losses.

The 6.2", 720P screen.

Better graphics, better framerates.

It should be competitive with everything on the market. That is what it's competing against.

Tegra Maxwell is 20nm Planar.
Tegra Pascal is 16nm Finfet. (Basically 20nm with Finfet.)
Tegra Volta is 16nm Finfet and doubles Tegra Pascal.

20nm Planar is not as energy efficient as 16nm/14nm Finfet, which could have allowed for more performance and less power consumption to get better than just a couple of hours of battery life.

Exactly. And that is the point I'm trying to make.

And the way the GPU can have more TDP headroom is by reducing the CPU clock rate. (Which comes with a reduction in voltage which has a direct relationship with power consumption.)
Remember the more power hungry the CPU you use is, the less less power you can reserve for the GPU and vice-versa if you wish to hit a certain power limit.

Generation 1, Graphics Core Next is inefficient. And was never optimized for the 14/16nm processes.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Switch is superior to the Wii U, even if it had less flops.
The only question that remains is... By how much.

Converesly, even after we discovered the clock rates, the devices performance position of between the Wii U and Xbox One hasn't actually changed, but it is closer to the Wii U now.

Expect to see improvements in every aspect of a game... With the biggest benefits being to Texturing (Thanks to better compression, more DRAM.) and geometry. (Thanks to the superior Polymorph engines.)

Pascal did bring improvements over Maxwell. Although it's more evolutionary rather than revolutionary... But in something that is as small as Tegra, things like 4th gen Delta Colour compression can mean some nice gains when you are only dealing with 20-25GB/s of bandwidth.
nVidia pegs the gains at around 20%.
Pascal also has better Asynch Compute performance.

To be clear. The Playstation 2, Gamecube and Original Xbox *could* do 1080P rendering. (Even if they couldn't technically output it.).

It is completely up to the developers... If you have developers pushing graphical fidelity or only building for the Portable mode, then the Switch isn't likely to hit 1080P.

If the wall measurement before the power supply is 20w, assuming thats basically near max output, you would be correct in the fact that approximately 16w is the max power the device/SOC could be pulling. Wires crossed, well said, I clearly misunderstood.