For the sake of my health (lol) I've always looked at Switch as a premium-ish handheld, with the bonus of boosted performance on tv output. This news actually doesn't bother me too much, as soon as we learned Switch was not going to be a trad. console box, we pretty much knew what the limitations were going to be with mobile tech.

That said, according to a respected poster on gaf, Switch could actually have more SMs, maybe 4 or even higher. 4 SMs at these clocks would perform the same as X2 with their full clocks. The reason I think its possible, is because Nintendo insists on calling Switch a "home console" first, so with a decent performance being a goal, not to mention , touted as close to XB1 like Emily Rogers has been spewing, Switch could have a custom build of 512 cuda cores that would only take up to 2w docked.. Increasing SMs is >>>> increasing clock speed, for battery life, according to Thraktor:

"Case 3: 4 SMs - Docked: 768 GF FP32 / 1,536 GF FP16 - Portable: 307.2 GF FP32 / 614.4 GF FP16

This would be on the upper limit of what's been expected, performance wise, and the clock speeds start to make more sense at this point, as portable power consumption for the GPU would be around the 2W mark, so further clock increases may start to effect battery life a bit too much (not that 400-500MHz would be impossible from that point of view, though). Active cooling would be necessary in docked mode, but still shouldn't be needed in portable mode (except perhaps if they go with a beefier CPU config than expected)."

Same CPU speed in both modes is quite obvious, as game logic must always run in the same mode (at most they could cut it by a few tens MHz by suspending unessential non-gaming services that they possibly chose to run in background while docked). GPU speed and so graphics level is obviously where big power saving can be achieved when in portable mode, and this too shouldn't be matter of arguments.
What can really disappoint people with sound reasons is the choice of top speed when docked.

its 2SM /256 CUDA cores

"This leaked spec actually appeared on Twitter before Nintendo's official reveal. Thought by many to be out of date or fake, we can confirm that Nintendo has briefed developers recently with the same information. "

• GPU: 256 CUDA cores, maximum 1GHz

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nintendo-switch-spec-analysis

You're right. But we should note that having support for Vulkan means that all engines out there that already support it will have a lot less modifications to run on Switch than the other way. Otherwise, developers would need to change big chuncks of code to get a simple "Hello World" from their engines. This is particularly important to indie devs like Yacht Club or Shin'en that use proprietary engines.

My point is.. having support to DirectX/OpenGL/Vulkan is far from "useless". It's a very useful addition even it's only for the beginning of development. Vulkan will probably not be the most efficient way to use the hardware but it could be good enough for a lot of games. The scarce resources that small devs have would be better spent on games than trying to accomodate their engine to the Switch new proprietary API.

Also in a way a Vita 2 since  I Imagine if such a thing was going to existed it would be around these specs and since it looks like there won't be one. A lot of those niche Japanese third party games are gonna have to go somewhere since we all how much Japan prefers handhelds.

nVidia does have the efficiency advantage, but we're talking about a console that, even its circa 2016 revised form, uses upwards of 70 watts during gameplay, versus a portable that will need to run on like 3-4 watts and not only power the chip itself, but also a screen. You'd need about 20 times more performance per watt, and the gap isn't that big.

Let's be honest; you're a tech savvy guy, from the moment Switch's form factor was revealed, with a March 2017 release window, you knew, as did I, that it would not be on par with the Xbox One in terms of power.

ok, so the only way to look at the specs in a positive way is to think of it as a handheld

and the only hope for NS to be an actual home console is an extra GPU through the Supplemental Computing Device via the capable USB-C port, but still, the portable mode will need developers to downgrade the games even more so yeah, we can expect 3DS kind of support, Wii at most if it's successful

Ninty should have picked the $350 road and more power imo

a great concept, probably to be limited by the graphics once more :/

I know it's disappointing for those who were hoping for a bit more horsepower, but I would suggest that it's best to just accept that Switch is what it is, instead of holding out hope that it has some kind of magical secret sauce.

If you want a considerable leap in graphics over Wii U, you're going to have to buy a PS4, an Xbox One, or a gaming PC. Like every other Nintendo system since the DS, Switch is first and foremost about an idea, with processing power merely serving as a means of realizing said idea as economically as possible.

Is it that obvious? PS4 pro has a modest boost in CPU speed. Scorpio will have a much bigger difference in cpu speed compared to xbox one. Does this mean that the only difference between undocked and docked will be resolution? More effects, physics, detail, draw distance, all require more attention from the cpu as well. Or will the game run slower while undocked.

It seems likely the undocked specs are the main target, with docked only adding a resolution boost. Yet if games are tailored to 720p regarding detail, draw distance etc, won't they look a bit sparse in 1080p? Like playing a crossplay ps vita game on ps3.

I wonder how the switch will be marketed. Home console $300, $350 deluxe with larger internal storage, like the wiiU release, with $60 games. Or will it launch as a handheld at $250 with $40 games.