I'm not going to expect that a handheld that will be probably sold 299 will do the same thing than home consoles released 3 years ago.

It's just bonkers. Be real. It's already incredible that it can do better than the WiiU. The WiiU was a pretty powerful console, if it wasn't for the PowerPC, third party support would have been better.

Now the Switch is an improvement on every aspect, more ram, better GPU, better CPU, better architecture.
So yeah the third party support will be a lot better, but don't expect it to have parity, it will not have parity. It's really not as powerful as a PS4 or an Xbox one, it can't do what it does, the Switch is a handheld.

Now as a WiiU owner, I am still waiting for reasons to buy it (games, duh) but I'm not expecting ME Andromeda, Red Dead Redemption 2, BF1, For Honor, or FF XV on it. It's not impossible, but this is really really far fetched, especially when you know how much developpers struggle with the "lack of power" of the PS4 and One.

Wii U wasn't powerful. It was like taping a few Wii consoles together. Its still debated whether or not Wii U was more powerful than gen 7 systems.

It was more powerful, except for the Weak CPU though. Way better GPU, better ram. Like I said, the thing that crippled it was the Power PC architecture. Nobody is working on those anymore, it's X86, ARM or GTFO. PowerPC was a joint creation of IBM and Apple, and Apple stopped using it in 2005... 2005!!!!!

Maybe PowerPC is still used somewhere else, but in videogames and in consumer products? It's over and done.There was a lot of behind the scenes talks saying that the WiiU was a nightmare to develop for. But it was a powerful console, much more than " taping a few Wii consoles together",  now it wasn't powerful enough to run all PS4/one games, and the Switch won't be either, but at least the Switch is easy to develop for, it's not an out of date console, it's a cutting edge Handheld.

Wii U may not have been a powerhouse, but it certainly wasn't "a few Wii consoles taped together" either.

It's GPU was lightyears ahead of the Wii; Latte was DX10/11 level compared to the DX7 tech in Hollywood. Wii U also had more than ten times as much RAM as Wii.

The gap from Wii to Wii U was comparable to the gap between PS2 and PS3, or Xbox and Xbox 360.

If memory serves all gen 7 consoles were using the PPC architecture. Wii U using the same architecture it used since the GCN shouldn't have been a handicap. Especially since devs have been using it for years.

All this does is prove my point that it was and is still debated whether or not Wii U was as powerful as Gen 7 systems. The jump in power should have been much higher.

^ [For some reason, the site refuses to post whenever I try to quote you]

At this point, it's pretty cut and dried that Wii U is more capable than PS3/360, just not in all ways, and not by much.

I agree that it should have been much more powerful than it was, but calling it a few Wiis taped together is like saying PS3 was just a few PS2s tied together.

To be honest as I'm owner of all three systems I'd say it was cut and dry the wii u was weaker overall.

Off the games available on all three systems its about 90% that are weaker on wii u, some considerably weaker.

For games that are bottlenecked more by the gpu than cpu then the wii u may win but there may still be parts that are weaker about the game than the other 2 consoles. For example Need for speed most wanted which has less online players, slower loading times and inferior control due to lack of analogue triggers on wii u. Also the issue that wii u doesn't support dolby 5.1  etc or have optical/coaxial output so the wii u has inferior sound unless you have audio hardware that supports multi-channel hdmi audio. The ps3 always wins here with a wide range of audio format support and different connections with a lot of 7.1 support. 

The wii u is about its own exclusive games where it has versions of multi-format games the majority are inferior.

The hardware specs say otherwise though. Multiplats may have been mostly poor, but that doesn't prove the hardware is less capable; look at Bayonetta 1 on PS3 vs the 360, would you say that proves 360 is far superior hardware?

If it uses an X1, I agree with you completely. The X1's bandwith is 25.6 GB/s.  That's serious performance bottleneck. If it uses an X2. Maybe and I mean maybe they could hit 70% of the Xbox One. That's if they go with GDDR5 which, when tied the Tegra X2, provides 80+ GB/s. If they opt for LDDR4 then even the X2 would only provide 51.2 GB/s of memory bandwith.