It being 20nm vs 16nm finFET is a bigger deal than Maxwell vs Pascal. Pascal is basically just a tweaked Maxwell with updated features, majority of it's performance gains is due to it's higher cock speeds.

I give mods permission to give me a profile picture since i cant get one done on my phone lol

It can, it just probably means a reduced resolution like 540p portable and 720p docked as well as reduced effects. 

This is Dark Souls III running on a Nvidia 730M, an old lap top GPU that's about 550 GFLOPS in performance (with only DDR3 RAM).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctP4C6CGKCM&t=95s

Granted the guy had to overclock to get it to run, but if the developer specifically coded to the metal of that specific GPU they likely could get it up and running. 

That's pretty good! Let me embed for you.

We still dont know if this Maxwell vs Pascal is true info, whole this article is a mess..

Emily reported that summer Dev Kits battery life is around 3 hours, while Nate Drake said that was in old dev kits and that based on final dev kits (November) Nintendo is aming 5-8 hours battery life. He also stated that in final dev kits also have Maxwell but from some reason he thought that final hardware will have Pascal...

You don't really know that, especially if we know that Switch is underclocked in portable mode and chip is actualy custom Tegra. Saying that 15.000 MaH battery life is needed for 5-8 hours battery life is nonsense even laptops have much smaller battery, and with Switch we are talking about 2016/2017 battery tech.

Yup, Emily and I think Laura, said that around 90% of those specs are accurate "as least in regards to the dev kits".

Again, development kits tend to perform higher than retail versions, the wii u development kit was 352 gflops but retail was 176 gflops. It will be scaled back for retail, its a custom chip so while it could still be 20nm fabrication it could be improved. Lower mhz on the chips, reduced  number of graphic processing elements etc will improve battery life. Portable mode may have the gpu only computing 200-250 gflops. 

5-8 hours is achievable and desirable with 20nm and seems a more realistic battery life than 3 hours.

Honestly what is more likely;

a) Nintendo maximises performance making the console more expensive to manufacture and leading to poor battery life which makes the portable function very poor and undesirable.

b) Nintendo compromises performance which also cuts manufacturing costs and massively increases battery runtime making the portable function much more usable and increases profits for the company.

Nintendo massively compromised wii u performance to save costs and they didn't even need to for functionality because it was a mains powered console but here they have the massive excuse to doing so that it is also a portable. They actually can save costs and improve functionality of the device at the same time.

Lets not forget Nintendo will be driving the hardware of the console at a low level. It's going to be getting games fully optimised for the system and doesn't have to comply with mid-level software drivers that slow performance.. It's not a windows or android device. Nintendo will be pushing the hardware at a low level.

If you look at a laptop with a 150-200 gflop gpu and you look at what the wii u delivered the wii u punched well above its weight graphically and the same will be true of Switch.

There really is nothing to worry about if the Switch final gflops performance is 400 or even 350 or 300 gflops. We just need to temper our expectations into something more realistic and not pretend this device will match xbox one or ps4 performance because it won't and doesn't need to.

Case in point. I have an AMD laptop with a 550 gflops gpu. I get 1hr 30m to 2hrs battery life with extensive gaming. My mother has a intel ultra low power celeron laptop that gets  5hrs plus battery life gaming. It's gpu is only a third to 1/4 as powerful as my laptop but still runs many of the same games at lower detail and frame rates but is still massively more desirable than mine for long trips, train journeys etc because while I'm twiddling my thumbs doing nothing the intel laptop is still operating for many more hours. I'm very happy with my laptop because most of the time there is a power socket available but not always.

Finding the sweet spot between performance and battery life is important for the Switch. Nintendo is pushing the Switch as a home console because really they have retreated from the home console market directly but want the Switch to appeal as both home console and portable to maximise sales and see its dual functionality as a big selling point. 3hrs battery life or less is simply not acceptable for a portable console. Nintendo already knows this. Nintendo portable consoles has often beaten off competition not because of higher spec but because of more practical longer battery life. 

Some realistic expectations are around 500-600 gflops for home console mode (docked), while around 300 gflops for portable mode.

The ARM CPU is so extremely weak and provides such a large bottleneck, so that it does not really make a difference.

You dont know what are you talking, modern ARM CPU easily outperform XB1/PS4 CPU. Even ARM A57 (rumoured Switch CPU) is very capable CPU and definitely will not be bottleneck in any case.

Still seems too high.  The Tegra spec with the extra denver cores  and  50GB/s memory gets 750 gflops yet stripping out the denver cores and only 25.6GB/s memory speed still achieves 600 gflops and then its likely based onthe older architecture anyway. No those figures are not realistic at all. For me the absolute top figure is around 500 gflops with the lowest at perhaps 300 gflops so I've gone for a middle position of 400 gflops. That I feel might even be optimistic going by Nintendo's past record but for me 600 gflops is just a fantasy figure. I don't even want 600 flops because the more I think about it the more I hate the idea of only 3hrs battery life and if its 600 gflops docked with 1080p output it still probably needs 300 plus gflops when portable at 720p which will be terrible battery life.

Even 400 gflops with 25.6GB/s is restrictive. The wii u had 12.8GB/s memory with 176 gflops but had a 32MB of ultra fast memory built into the chipset. Unless Switch has a similar arrangement the Switch will be bottle-necked by memory speed even at 400 gflops.