Did anyone expect/predict that it would be underclocked to the level it is?

Why so much unused overhead?

My post was in response to the claim that handheld games would help the Switch sell 3DS+ numbers.

???

Isn't that what portable gamers are buying? Handheld games are what gave 3DS its numbers :?

Nintendo likely got a hell of a deal on those Tegra X1 Maxwell chips. Nvidia probably fucked up in designing it thinking it would be in a lot of devices. But to make that chip usable in a portable device the size the Switch is (keep in mind there has to be a battery inside that main unit) ... they had to underclock. 

They will, improved sequels to 3DS games will help the 3DS audience to upgrade to Switch.

Its not all thats needed but appealing to 3DS owners is certainly something that Nintendo needs to do.

It does. Because if the hardware isn't "Good enough" to receive ports. Then it won't receive them.

The Cell was pretty average. The only way you could get anywhere *near* it's theoretical performance was with iterative refinement floating point.

The fact it was a fairly "Dumb" design, with no coherancy between cores, in-order, non-multi-threaded layout is a testament to that fact.
And that is without even touching upon bandwidth, latency, branch tree prediction, caches etc'.

It was a cost-optimized, highly parallel CPU. It was never really as powerful as some would inaccurately claim, Essentially, Jaguar is better than Cell. - And that, even with 8x cores is a Netbook/Tablet CPU equivalent to a mid-range CPU from over a decade ago.

The PS2's CPU was certainly decent at the time, all things considered. But it still fell short of a Pentium 3, Athlon or Duron in the real world... And still couldn't hold a candle to the Original Xbox's Hybrid Pentium 3/Celeron chip... Which also fell short of the PC as well, which had Tualatin and Thunderbird at that time.

Nope. Don't think anyone did expect for it to be underclocked to such an insanely low level.
With that in mind, hopefully the uproar continues and Nintendo "Up Clocks" it. ;) Worked for the Xbox One.

I think Nintendo is expecting to sell a vast majority of units and thus placed a large order with nVidia... And one way to keep costs low is to have as many functional chips as you can, which means either above average voltages (Not good for mobile) or lower clocks. Or even both.

I doubt the deal is as good as you think. nVidia is known for being expensive, even for old hardware.

They also don't fabricate the chips, they get a 3rd party like TSMC to do it and usually don't have a ton of stockpiled chips waiting around.

And it doesn't matter what size the switch is or the size of the battery. These same Tegra chips ended up in mobile devices of similar size anyway.

Compared to the 3DS, the Switch will look like it skipped a couple of generations. The difference will be night and day.

So the Switch will likely appeal to mobile gamers even with it's performance being hampered... But how will it appeal to console and PC gamers with higher demands and expectations?

I can give you two reasons why you are most likely incorrect:

1) It has already proven to be untrue (games like Smash, Monster Hunter, Bravery, Pokemon and others all have no problems selling on hand helds... even outselling some home console AAA multiplats). I have siad before that people literally say, "if they gave me the exact same Pokemon with HD graphics on a home console, I'm in" and you know it is true. Hand held titles are on par with or surpassing home console titles in terms of quality and, "bang for your dollar".

2) If the games are indeed hand held in price, you will be absolutely incorrect. The biggest reason I play my 3DS more than my home consoles is because Monster Hunter Generations is a home console experience that only cost me 40 bucks instead of 60 dollars. Home consoles need to catch up to hand helds as far as many gamers are concerned. You do not need to be a mathematician to see how this makes sense.

What I mean is the difference between being 1/3 of PS4 & 1/4 of PS4 isn't a big enough difference to makes the games drastically different and I doubt many developers are gonna be like, "This thing is only 1/4 the power of PS4, I can't work with that!!!! If it was 1/3 the power of PS4, I would support the hell out of it!!!!"

That's what I meant in my original post. The games designed from the ground up for Switch aren't going to be massively improved by having higher clock speeds and developers who won't port games to Switch with these rumored specs probably wouldn't regardless of clock speeds.

Cause websites with miss-information still exist

Also damnn, multi-quote of the year or what? loll

We're going around in circles now.

Tthey won't. The 3DS sold that well because it's alternative was the Vita, a niche piece of hardware that was only known for indies and niche japanese games. Switch's alternatives are the XBO and PS4, platforms known for being the best places to play games. They will help fill the Switch's line up, but that will only help it with regards to looking better compared to the XBO and PS4. That won't translate at all to it performing comparably to the 3DS. What will is having multiplats.

That kind of stuff only matters when all else is equal. Multiplats are that "all else." When all else is equal, Nintendo having all of those handheld game sequels are a great bonus. When all else is not equal, it's a deficiency.

"I can't have Assassin's Creed, but at least I can have A Link Between Worlds" sends a horrible message when your competition is the PS4/XBO.

"I can have Assassin's Creed and A Link Between Worlds too" is a great one when your competition is the PS4/XBO.