1) If you think this is how AAA games get ported across architectures, you must be terribly misinformed. Especially in lower powered machines, the code needs to be written specifically to make the most out of the hardware you have. For example, when coding the game for PS4, the developer has access to 218 Gb/s (on PS4Pro mode), while on the Switch we're hearing about 25Gb/s. This limitation alone means a ton of compromises will have to be made.

If you would be porting from a lower specced machine to a higher specced one, then yeah, porting through middleware solutions (who add inneficiencies to the code) wouldn't be as much of a problem.

2) It's not just textures we need to be worried about, it's the actual game logic. For example in open world games (like the witcher, etc) in areas with plenty of NPCs the game goes from being GPU to CPU bound. No amount of low res textures will help the game play better on a shitty CPU machine. So the developers will necessarily need to adjust the game itself (as in, lowering the amount of NPCs in any given area for example) so the game will not come to a standstill. Another example would be in a game like Battlefield where you have 64 player servers in which a ton of physics and calculations need to be done every single frame. The impact 1 player dropping a bomb which causes a building to collapse and how said building not only makes permanent changes to the map as well as the impact on every player. I don't think these are very controversial examples, so you should be able to think about it for a moment and realize I might just be right on this one.

3) I think you should read my previous 2 points and re'evaluate this 3rd one.

1) I think we are at the point where we are saying almost the same thing. I did not say it was flipped the switch and it's safe. I did say it was non zero work. However, I do think we have a disagreement on the amount of work it takes.

2) You're comparing the work that requires a better CPU. While the PS4 and Xbox One have low powered, low end CPUs.

Nintendo's history is that their custom designs are lower performance not higher and if the development kit spec is correct then it still is 25GB/s not 50GB/s. There is a difference between expected performance and desired performance.  We have lots of indicators that Nintendo have gone for a lower spec design than the reference Tegra design and that battery life may have improved to 5-8hrs. In the case of the wii u in the past it was speculated that the wii u would have 800 gflops at the beginning and final actual value was 176 glops and I wonder if we will get a similar ratio here. Maximum claim so far is 1.5 terraflops and that would distill down to 375 gflops for a similar ratio.

Lets not forget that the wii u had an absolutely hopeless cpu arrangement of about 9,000 mips but the Switch's quad Arm A57's are going to be 3-4x that power so that memory bandwidth of 25.6GB/s will also be under greater strain.

Lets take a realistic approach here and work with that 25.6GB/s memory bandwidth and what would be a performance level based on that. The wii u memory bandwidth was half that so you could say using the wii u that would give you 352 gflops and 18,000 mips cpu performance. The ps3 has 25.6GB/s for its video memory and about 19,200 GB/s for its main memory so the Switch represents a reduction in memory bandwidth over the ps3. I think 360 was something like 25.6GB/s for its shared memory with 10MB of high speed memory.

Realistically  if the Switch has some high speed embedded memory like 32MB or 64MB somewhere then maybe up to 500 gflops could be achieved with some bottlenecking issues in memory access but without the high speed embedded memory then a fair bit lower.

With the wii u we can see the memory bandwidth of 12.8GB/s was perfectly judged for a low performance 32bit cpu arrangement and 176 gflops gpu and there is no reason to believe the Switch won't be equally well set up with memory bandwidth being no more or less than needed for the cpu and gpu performance.

I hope no one is disappointed if its as low as 400 gflops or perhaps even a bit lower. Remember Nintendo makes reliable, dependable hardware designed to take some abuse it doesn't make hardware at the cutting edge of technology. We can hope for higher performance but its not really required for a product like Switch.

Actually most recent Switch patent shows that fan is working even in handheld mode but at low mode, while at high mode in dock.

I dont recall those claims about 2.5x Wii U power, and they based on what exactly!? Probably on that Tegra is 512 Gflops while Wii U is 176 Gflops, but that makes around 3x more power than Wii U. Emily actually said that Switch is very capable, less powerful than XB1 but compatible with it. Like I wrote, 400 (or less) Gflops is actually worst possible case and lowest prediction I saw until now, 500-600 is far more realistic, but its clear we don't agree about expectations, hopefully we will know more in January. ;)

I didn't just say downgraded assets, I said NEWLY BUILT assets, which is what the Wii required, and which is what cost it MANY multiplatform games despite being a popular console. This is why most multiplatform titles on the Wii aren't even the same game, but a completely different game from a different developer. Because the gulf between HD and Wii was so significant that direct ports from one to the other wasn't even possible. Hence, they basically made a new game, which is more expensive to do, even when it's a demake like Modern Warfare. Hence why, in the end, power is a bigger factor than hardware: cheap hardware can make a port MORE EXPENSIVE, and less worth it. I'm not even saying money isn't also important, honestly I'd say it's a near equal factor. But as you said, Call of Duty Wii sold well. So how come it received so few other high profile multiplatform games in its lifespan?

Now, I admit, Advance Warfare is an interesting case. As far as I know, most cross gen games were made to be cross gen from the get go, but Advanced Warfare, was, according EuroGamer, made for next gen. But then we also have the instance of Assassins Creed Unity on modern consoles and Rogue Flag on last gen consoles, something that is rather pointless to do if Xbox 360 and PS3 were perfectly capable of running games built specifically for PS4 and Xbox One. This type of practice is only done when the less advanced hardware can't handle the main game, which as I've already pointed out was common on the Wii. 

The reason why I harp on Dark Souls 3 is because Digital Foundry regarded it as a very visually,impressive game. Because even PS4 couldnt run Dark Souls 3 or Bloodborne at more than 30 fps, despite the games  being built for it, while both it and Xbox One could run Advanced Warfare at 1080p and 50 to 60 fps. I harp on it because nothing about the rumor indicated that From built completely new assets to make their Switch port happen, but instead ported it down DIRECTLY from what the PS4 and One were running.

What I'm basically trying to get at here, is that porting between console generations is rarely ever a matter of "turning down the graphic settings". The gulf of power has, in the past, usually been too great to overcome through any means other than what I highlighted earlier. We have had instances of this happen this generation with the Wii U, with stuff like Project Cars and Yooka Laylee being the most infamous examples. These games weren't canned for the same reason as other less advanced indie titles (because the Wii U was dying) but because the system literally could not run the games well enough to be playable. This generation has been defined by cross gen and games and last gen remasters because companies were slow to invest in this generation, but I'm still not really convinced this has changed. But if I'm wrong, and all of this gen's games, like Dark Souls 3, are scalable to last gen hardware and Switch can receive all the Xbox One and PS4 games it can handle? Then I don't consider its performance to be particularly important at all, I guess, and I don't really have anything else to discuss here. As I see it, what's important to the Switch is that it be powerful enough to run its competitor's games, and receive all the big multiplatform games that Wii and Wii U could not technologically handle. It needs to be able to get the next Dark Souls, the next Red Dead, the next Bioshock, the next GTA. If all it needs to do is sell, then great! I hope it sells well enough to get these titles, and I hope Switch owners buy them when they arrive so we can get more.

in terms of power, I guess we will get a better idea Monday, assuming Seasons of Heaven is ACTUALLY running on Switch. If not....January 12 can't come soon enough. 

I'm sure the fan operates in a number of modes when portable, off, slow, fast and possibly speeds in between slow and fast. Thats just normal for a portable device running off battery power.

There is a generational difference between graphic processing units, later architecture tends to be more efficient. While the wii u was only 176 gflops I don't think there was anyone who would argue that it wasn't still more powerful than the gpu's of ps3 and 360 that had higher gflops and the nvidia switch gpu's will be the same above the wii u performance.

Nintendo don't release specifications nowadays so we won't get that information in January. It took a lot of work and time to finally get the real figures for wii u and the starting position was over 4x the actual value. As someone said about the wii u, the real reason 176 gflops wasn't accepted for so long was people were in denial about just how low Nintendo would go in performance terms.

There is a real chance my Switch figures are actually well over the real figure. 

We shall see but I hope the same old excuses aren't wheeled out including developer laziness and quick and dirty port that doesn't take advantage of the hardware when the Switch fails to provide games that match what would be expected of a 600 gflops system in March. Nvidia and arm chips are very well documented with a lot of developer hours so the Switch should be firing on pretty much all cylinders out of the gate.

Why would Nintendo use worse performance than stock Tegra X1 when we already saw that full Tegra X1 is very capable to run in mobile device, not to mention that in Switch portable mode Tegra will be underclock and that means higher battery life and cooler device. While in dock mode there no reason at all that Switch has lower power than stock Tegra X1, and actually because in that way its not used like mobile chip and dont have problem with power, battery and cooling, NIntendo can easily custom it/made it to have higher performance than stock X1.

So yes, I saying that that 400 Gflops or less in dock mode is worst posible case and actually realistic same like same infos saying that Switch will have around 1TF, 500-600 Gflops is most realistic for dock mode and figure I saw people mentioned most.

Definitely Nintendo will give us some specs about Switch in January event, but after that event some NDAs will probably will be stop existing, so we could get some infos about exact power from Nintendo insider or 3rd parties leakers, so yes in January hopefully we will have more infos about exact Switch power.

Yeah, a New 3DS/DSi type mid-gen upgrade to the Switch is very likely.