The Tegra X2 was designed for car's and power conservation wasn't a main feature. That aside the X2 isn't much more powerful than an X1. The bulk of the performance gains were from a higher clock speed. People talk about the X2 like it was massive leap in performance. The X1 is .5 TFLOP chip. The X2 is a .625 TFLOP chip.

That's because there are no conwumer products at all that use the Parker, AKA X2, except for  a handful of cars.  In terms of real world performance, the Switch is among the most if not the most powerful device at its size and price point.  To get more power you either have to go larger or go more expensive.  There's no way around that.  I don't suspect we'll see Parker in use in consumer electronics for over a year from now, possibly 2.

Hey: I'm the guy who wrote the impressions Nintendo Everything sourced. I figured I'd note a few things they left out. I wrote quite a bit more than what the article mentions.

For one, there was no discernible difference between docked mode and portable mode, graphically. E3 demos are, by their very nature, in an incomplete state, and are typically poorly optimized. It is very possible that the game hasn't been optimized for docked mode.

In addition to the halved frame rate, the game also runs at a lower resolution than the other versions. The textures and shadows are also of noticeably lower quality.

The game still plays quite well.

It's not surprising. The definitive version will be on the more powerful consoles. The switch has the "portable" version.

It will be up to preference.

Is it? Do you have a source for this?

480p/60 ;)

Switch has more performance than the PS3. You wouldn't be seeing Zelda or FAST RMX on the PS3, and those are just launch titles. FLOPS aren't a very useful metric for comparing performance between radically different components and architectures.

The game is still in beta Nem. You shouldn't judge a game on its beta stage.

The PS3 FLOPS were always especially dificult to use to judge since not one of its theoretical peaks was ever realized in a game by any dev ever.  And the RAM bottleneck was really felt hard towards the end of the 7th gen.

HD Rumble probably cost a good bit to R&D, but the components are apparently the same as what is used in smart phone vibration, so fabrication costs are likely not as high as people think.

Switches extra VRAM and more modern tech do make it more powerful than the PS3 overall, and it allows for the higher resolutions of 900p and 1080p. But it's not going to run games that look much different to PS3 level visuals. I mean maybe something like GoW III at 900p at most.

Point is it's weak enough to not get gen 8 multiplats, just like the WiiU, just like the PS3. It's not getting Red Dead, Anthem, Witcher 3, Battlefront II because they were designed to run on home consoles that were at least 3 times more powerful. And remember the Switch itself is limited by the fact that it has to run all it's games within 150 GFLOPS in portable mode. Now that's the real kicker.

It's not quite the same situation as the Wii U though; that little bit more power, more modern tech, and better engine support means it at least gets ports of stuff like Sonic Forces, Snake Pass, Rocket League, Redout, etc that wouldn't have happened on Wii U.

It may not be getting high-end AAA titles, but that was never an option for a portable form factor, and honestly, it doesn't need them, PS4/Xbone already have that niche locked down.

What are you talking about? it is all about the FLOPS.

IT I ALL ABOUT THE NUMBERS

My 5 year old laptop has 4 core 8 thread i7 3gen runs just as good as a i7 7gen 2core 4 thread cpu.

Mine has 4 better than 2. so mine is 2x better ......