A massive chunk of that is for lossless 7.1 audio, high quality video. It should have no issues dropping onto a 32GB Cart with a bit of compression.

I don't really see a reason for it. The 2 COD games on WiiU did bad. I don't really see COD fans wanting to play it on the go anyway. The majority of that audience do care a lot about graphics as well I think.

On the other hand there is no FPS franchise on the Switch really ... and the system is selling way better than the Wii U. 

I think multiplats do have a chance to sell well on the Switch because of the utlity of the system ... being able to play anywhere is something that will motivate people to buy games on Switch that they wouldn't on Wii U. 

Who is going to play COD online on the bus? People usually dont play COD for 20 minutes at a time.

The Wii u got some cod so i expect the saitch to get some too.

That isn't fair or realistic though. Switch is really limited by its portable mode which is 150-200 gflops, the docked performance is really just used for an upscale or anti-aliasing or both. It doesn't reload new assets when you dock and undock it just switches between 2 output drivers. The Switch has total memory bandwidth of 25.6GB/s and the ps4 176GB/s so 7x performance there, Switch is about 12,000 mips cpu compared to about 37,000 mips (after the OS has taken one cpu) plus their is CISC optimisations you can make on ps4 which probably makes it about 4x and of course  in graphic power about 10x going from 150-200gflops to 1750 gflops. Lastly mobile chipsets tend to underperform a bit because the chipsets are designed to conserve power and don't make use of as many support chips on the pcb so that probably drops it slightly again. Skyrim should be a good indicator of the  Switch performance level as that game has both high cpu and gpu demands so will give the system a good workout and makes comparisons with both last gen and current gen hardware easier. 

If you look at the Nvidia Shield box which has twice the cpu power of Switch and 2.5x the gpu it struggles to run a lot of pc ports that well. They are at a limited performance level so you would expect Switch to perform well below those.

I suppose in the future it may be possible that someone would do a slow switching mode between portable and docked that completely reloads the game with higher spec graphic assets but at the moment I believe all Switch games just switch instantly between both modes so its not fair or realistic to claim 384 gflops performance until there is a game that only runs in docked mode. Alternatively perhaps someone can explain how a game running at 384 gflops in docked mode can instantaneously drop to 150 gflops performance and continue at the same frame rate in portable mode while still utilising graphic assets and features designed to make good use of 384 gflops of performance.

Didn't the Wii get all the COD's back in the day? Can't see it getting new COD's but it's possible. I haven't bought a COD game since MW3, so wouldn't buy a version just cos it's on Switch

wii got it's own version of many of the COD games but they weren't really the same game in the same way as android versions of Fifa aren't the same as 360/ps3 versions. They are versions downgraded to suit weak hardware. The only main plus is the motion controls. If you like motion controls for fps games they could be very good. I remember playing mw3 on wii and it was mainly just very low resolution with very low res textures the basic gameplay was the same although I think there was some missing stuff that was obviously too much for wii in the detail of the graphics. I seem to remember on one Call of duty game the wii had a very low soldier count around you, there were loads on 360 but few on wii.

I think the issue with Switch is it won't be the same experience and therefore it won't sell as well on Switch and therefore its not really in the interest of consumers or publishers to release on Switch. Switch confuses the issue as its a very powerful portable so could take the game portable but then multiplayer is a strong part of the game which is more difficult when mobile.

Well why don't they just do this ... take one of the what ... five or six COD games on PS3/360, maybe add more content to those and release a Switch COD.

There's a market opportunity for them because there are no other shooters of this kind on the Switch.

Nope. Too soon to call that.

Nope.

AMD and Intel CISC cpu's tend to work internally as RISC these days.

Skyrim can run on a toaster...

All the consoles have terrible CPU's.
The Switch's A53 cores are garbage. The A57 are semi-decent, but hampered by clockrate... But are 50% wider than Jaguar, however it's a core design that is starting to show it's age.

Jaguar though... AMD's CPU's were shit at that time. Jaguar was the worst AMD offered.

There is still a bit of a leap between Switch and the Playstation 4, but I wouldn't call it generationally different.
The Xbox One, Xbox One S, Xbox Scorpio, Playstation 4 pro are all faster than the base Playstation 4.... But generally it's thanks to the sheer number of Cores that allows these consoles to push past the Switch overall in the CPU department.

We need to keep in mind that there is an API difference. Most Switch titles should be using a low-level API, which does give it a slight edge in many aspects over the nVidia Shield. Is it enough to make up for the shit clock rates? Who knows. - We probably won't know untill a developer details information about it.

That's easy. Because Gflops isn't the be-all, end-all to a systems performance. You need significantly more to render and output a game, so perhaps stop using it within the context you are using it?