People don't buy Nintendo platforms for third party multiplats.

Yeah, I'm in the "Super Switch" camp. I don't want to see another wild, "innovative" idea until they've thoroughly utilized their back catalog. There's no reason why a console selling like the Switch can't see a new F-Zero, a new Golden Sun, a new Star Tropics even. Not to mention an HD remaster of this at the very least:

Switch isn't like other recent Nintendo platforms though. There are quite a few third party games on the Switch that are selling quite well, look at the NPD Switch top 10 software for last month, 6/10 are 3rd party games, two years into the product cycle. Fortnite is doing great on the Switch and getting its own hardware bundle. 

Kingdom Hearts 3, RE2 Remake, GTAV, Elder Scrolls VI, could all likely clear 1 million+ on the Switch/Pro. That's a decent foundation to build off of and something to grow from. It's not about getting into a pissing match with Sony/MS, but it's also acknowledging there is demand for experiences beyond just "Nintendo games" in the form factor the Switch offers. 

Switch definitely has a little more of the NES, SNES, even N64 DNA inside of it where people are open to more than just Nintendo software. Look at the eShop rankings too, there's always a healthy number of 3rd party titles in the top 20 all the time. 

There are definitely 3rd party multiplats I've bought on the Switch over PS4/XB1 because I want to be able to play those games on the go. I got Cities Skylines, FIFA, and Diablo, and even paid more for those on Switch because I can't exactly throw an XBox One X into my backpack and play it on a plane or train. 

The Playstation 4 Operates at 1.6ghz, not 1.7ghz.

ARM A57 and AMD's Jaguar should be roughly equivalent in performance per clock. But Jaguar operates at a higher clock and has more cores. - But you are just reinforcing my argument at this point.

Remember though... AMD's Jaguar was AMD's absolute worst CPU at a time when even their high-end CPU's were trending towards the low-end. - Perspective.

The Switch 2 will also have an increase in CPU capability, it would be pretty asinine to assume otherwise anyway.
The jump from A57 to A72 was 90%.
The jump from A72 to A73 was 30%.
The jump from A73 to A76 was 35%.

The jump from Jaguar to Zen you are probably looking at 400% or more. - 800-900% if it's an octo variant of Zen+.
And that is before we start looking at Zen 2...

Fact is... AMD spent years trailing the industry, where-as ARM hasn't... And that pays off for the current Switch in comparison to the Playstation 4/Xbox One. - But that all goes away next gen as AMD finally has a CPU design worth talking about, the performance delta on the CPU side of the equation is set to grow next gen, that's just a reality of AMD catching up to Intel.

It's part of the reason.
The other is that it's a Maxwell derived part. - nVidia made significant engineering changes with Pascal in order to drive up clockrates for the same amount of power.

I disagree, the largest bottleneck is the GPU. - It simply doesn't have the bandwidth/fillrate to drive higher resolutions... And that is evident in the many games that aren't even in HD/720P.
The CPU doesn't really help in some games though.

It really depends on the task, some tasks will perform better on ARM, whilst others will be better on the x86 chips.

In short... As how things are implemented currently, Jaguar in the consoles should beat ARM A57 in the Switch, mostly thanks to higher clockrates and core counts.
However, if you were to normalize everything and have equal clocks, bandwidth, latencies, core counts... Then I would think A57 would pull ahead.

It's difficult to really peg down actual performance numbers... Because none really exists.

Things like Physics can also muddy the situation as well... Some games will drive Physics on the GPU, whilst others on the CPU, really depends on where the developer takes things.

Anything the Xbox 360 can do, the Switch can do better.

Also can't forget that... The Xbox One and Playstation 4 tend to have uncompressed 7.1 audio, which takes up a massive chunk of space. - And then 1080P FMV on top of that.
Carts are technically superior to optical disks on every front, except... Cost.

It costs to have large capacities, so something has to give somewhere.

The Switch as it is already offers enough to third parties. If they want to support it, they will, if they won't, they won't. 

Offering a Pro model won't change that, devs won't suddenly decide to put games on it, especially when they can only sell to a fraction of the userbase. It's just flushing R&D money down the toilet for zero gain.

The Apple A12X destroys the PS4/XB1 CPUs in low power form factor, I suspect ARM is studying that. Hell that chip apparently more than holds its own against Intel mutli-core i7s that are inside high end laptops. 

Mobile tech is really advancing fast. 

If the port is easy enough and doesn't ask the developer to jump through 3000 hoops I think some devs definitely will be amenable to putting more PS4/XB1 tier content on the device especially the really popular games. Nintendo has catchet now too because the Switch brand has been proven to be successful and has good demographics at that too -- it's not soccer moms or little kids fuelling the success of the device. So Nintendo has credibility now with devs that they didn't have 3-4 years ago, Switch is for real. 

It doesn't really matter anyway, because Nintendo will likely offer the Pro model first and foremost because they want in on the same gravy train Sony/MS are cashing in on. NPD just released a report that the XBox One X has been a huge boom to XBox One sales. It's simply good business to have a "Pro" model these days, you can charge more money and reap higher profits while having that setup allows you to sell more hardware overall. 

Nintendo these days is more about the bottom line and increasing revenue/profit. No way they stay away from the Pro-model concept for long. Apple was already showing how its done, but Sony/MS jumping on that bandwagon with game console iterations of that concept basically sealed the deal. 

Apple has always gone big though... And generally always had the edge in SoC performance over other ARM implementations.
But... It's not going to win in every scenario against Intel's big cores or vice versa. - The processing loads of an iPad will be different to that of a notebook... And that is taken into consideration when designing these chips in order to provide the biggest performance impact.

Thing is, third parties have proven time and time again that even when Nintendo offers hardware that can support their games, most of them will choose not to take the opportunity. We already see this with the current Switch, with plenty of games that could be viably brought over skipping the platform.

There's no way a revision that represents only a subset of the install base is going to change that.

How many times has Nintendo really offered hardware that could support modern games? After the GameCube (which got a fair bit of 3rd party support), you had Wii U, which flopped market wise because fickle casuals didn't want to buy game consoles anymore, but even that still had IP like Call of Duty, Batman, and Assassin's Creed on it. 

Switch is really the first time that Nintendo's had a successful game product that has market demographics that fall in line with the types of games many developers make (ie: not soccer moms or kids mainly interested in dance/fitness games). 

Again it's not about having 500000 third party games and suddenly competing with Sony/MS, a Switch Pro can eventually become the main Switch that's sold and that can offer the ability for a few devs to offer up some of the more popular games in the industry if they wish. And Nintendo gets a higher end premium model that they can maintain a higher price point for ($300-$350) which is lucrative from a business end point. 

The only people who "lose" are those tiny minority on internet message boards who will cry about a new setup different from the 1980s way of doing things, and even they, the moment they see Resident Evil 2 Remake or Kingdom Hearts 3 or Elder Scrolls VI running on a Switch model will probably abruptly swallow their pride and go "oh cool, now that I see that, I want one". Describe a hybrid console here 3 years ago and half the board would cry bloody murder and say "no way! I want a distinct Nintendo console and portable, that's how its always been!", then show them the trailer for it and 5 minutes later "hey, you know this actually looks pretty neat, I'm buying one".