To be able to run the same games, even at lower res or lower FX settings, but with the ability to manage game worlds with the same size and complexity, the Switch just needs to have at least the same system RAM (or, compared with consoles using UMA, the same size of RAM made) available for the games code and data, and the same CPU power, or even a little less, as usually portables use leaner OS, GUI and apps, and using 2016-2017 tech and smaller production process it won't be too hard to match, even in a mobile CPU, the CPU section of APUs made with lightweight cores in 2012-2013 tech and bigger and a lot more power hungry process, also considering it will use the latest implementation of the leaner and more efficient ARM risc architecture instead of the powerful, but bloated x86-64.
GPU power won't probably be the same, but with scalable graphics engines it just needs to be not too much lower.
Anyhow, packing in the pros of both PSV and Wii U, and solving some flaws of both, if it will have good marketing it should sell more than both combined, so, giving a very optimistic lifetime sales prediction to both PSV and Wii U, Switch should sell more than 40M.

Well, not saying it would be SLI, more like what Cerny did with PS4 Pro (mirror copy of PS4's GPU, one half disabled in PS4 mode, other running at original PS4 clock).

But, as I said, it's just a thought experiment, I really doubt Nintendo went berserk with tech...one can hope though.

No way it's going to be more powerful than the Xbox One.
It's especially worth noting that the system is just not designed for that. Nintendo started to do its own thing from Wii on and this is just the continuation of that and they can be totally fine with that.

It proberbly won't even have more then 4GB of shared memory, even if it would match the Tflops it would still be worse resolution because of this and I doubt its going to match the Xone TFlops, actually, concidering the nvidia chips used the processor will even be slower and it won't be a octacore either, and the processor in the ps4 and xone is already pretty terrible.

We also need more data on the cardridges, will they be as fast and hold up as much storage as a harddrive? 4k games are generally around 60-80GB and 1080P games are 50-60GB in some cases already, they showed NBA 2k17 which is one of those games that is 50GB+ will the cardridge hold that?

Do we need to use USB HDD's again? that would make the base price of the console higher and also again it will reduce performance because they also need to be able to run without it

there are so many freaking things that point towards this console being NOT in range of the original xbox one that this discussion is completely setting a unrealistic expectation untill we see the specs.

One of the most TELLING reasons to assume the sceptics are right is this:

IF IT WAS MORE POWERFULL THEN THE XBOX ONE NINTENDO WOULD HAVE RELEASED THE SPECS because that would be a HUGE selling point.

A Xbox/ps4 powerfuill tablet, hell, id pre-order it !

People really need to stop building this thing up with unrealistic expectations or it's going to all come crashing down when they actually release specs...

There are some misunderstandings in this post.

Carts will almost always be faster than a HDD. No moving parts, just a stream of electrons :)

Nintendo doesn't release specs of their systems since... the Wii, I think.

Carts should be faster, but its not a sure thing. But the biggest issue is the size, if they want to put nba 2k17 on the console and the cards are less then 50GB then there will have to be concessions, or a download for the additional download and a massive storage in the console.

IT would be great if the cardridges are 64GB and there is a huge storage, think about it, when a game releases like red dead redemption 2, which is the biggest game to release next year and even if it fits on a cartridge it would still recieve massive updates, where do those updates go on the tablet?

So its not misleading, its a bold decision that might bite them concidering third party support and the quality of third party games, untill we know the full specs we won't know but its very likely the storage speed won't be a problem but the storage amount will be

We allready have 64, 128 and even (I think) 256 GB MicroSDs. Why wouldn't the catridgest be able to store more than 50Gb? Also, they will probable use different cartridge sizes for different games; Nintendo is usually very effective in keeping their games to a minimu size, so expect 8, 16 and 32 GB game cartridges for Nintendo and other 3rd Company "smaller" games and 64 and 128 GB cartridges for more graphically "intense" games.

We already have 64, 128 and even (I think) 256 GB MicroSDs. Why wouldn't the cartridges be able to store more than 50Gb? Also, they will probable use different cartridge sizes for different games; Nintendo is usually very effective in keeping their games to a minimu size, so expect 8, 16 and 32 GB game cartridges for Nintendo and other 3rd Company "smaller" games and 64 and 128 GB cartridges for more graphically "intense" games, and for GoTY, Legendary and Complete editions.

But It is a sure thing in anything but (possibly) a sustained read. I remember seeing somewhere that the price difference is, as well, small between BD and flash memory - can't find the exact page atm, but Nintendo should have space covered.

Updates are given in any game these days - and that should be covered as well.  Exactly "how", doesn't really matter to a buyer I think. You'll see when the thing is closer to being released.