Who knows? Guess we'll find out soon lol.

Could it be that they actually want their games to feel unique and interesting and not realistic and boring? Shocking

I cant tell if you're fuckin with us or not . "I dont care graphics", is completely opposite to, "Splatoon 2 looks exactly like the original and I'm disappointed". Your post are always full of clear contradictions like these. 

Don't you mean undocked

Splatoon 2 is 720p.

1) The Geforce 830M has 57% less bandwidth, than Tegra. - Both are based on Maxwell, so both have the same bandwidth saving technology.

2)  The Tegra has double the Render-Out-Put Pipelines. But they are also running 33% slower each, giving the Geforce 830M a theoretical Render-output-pipeline disadvantage of 49%.

So as you can see, FLOPS isn't everything. And you should probably stop using it in the context you are intending.

The Geforce 830M however does have a Texture Mapping Unit and Polymorph engine edge, leading the Tegra by 33.9%


*****

Basically the comparison you used can only be used as a "guestimate" not something that is accurate.

Even without throttling, FLOPS is a "Theoretical" number anyway, with no guarentee's it can be achieved in the real world.

There is more to a GPU than flops. So try looking past it.

The fact that the Switch has significantly more usable DRAM is a big bonus just there, which allows for bigger and better textures.

The fact it uses carts is a massive advantage for the Switch as well. Giving it a massive advantage in streaming performance over optical-based (Possibly mechanical disk? Haven't seen the Cart specs yet.) systems, so it should require less DRAM as less data needs to be stored in DRAM.

The GPU's aren't identical anyway. The Geforce 830M in many aspects is slower than Tegra, it's to be used as a guide, to give you a "ballpark" idea of the Tegra's capability. Not something to be used in a literal fashion.

Whilst you are right, to be fair, Mario Kart 8 isn't exactly the most graphical demanding game to grace the Wii U. :P
Zelda is more demanding... And partly because of it's render distance.

I don't think anyone expect Xbox One levels of performance anyway. (And if they did, those expectations were simply unrealistic.)

I expected for the device to be more capable than it was though, for 3rd party's to consider it.
Nintendo's artistic flair should help cover the hardware deficiency though.

Most people upgrading are coming from a 3ds, so that's an impressive upgrade at the very least. Not to mention that graphics don't jump nearly as much as they used to. I just beat Mass Effect 1 for the first time ever and I thought it still looked good (especially character models) and am playing ME2 now and, in my opinion, this is good enough graphics for my liking. I'd imagine 3 doesn't feel that much better and Andromeda.

Nintendo's always been pretty good at getting pretty visuals out of low end tech; Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3 managed to look great on Wii, as did Captain Toad on Wii U.

At this point I'm not entirely sure of the point you are trying to make! You are ready to judge a system and it's abilities off of the limited games we have seen in development. No one is expecting a portable XbOne or PS4 so what's your argument?

Are you trying to say that Nintendo cut corners some where? Where would they have gotten this readily available powerful SoC from to use in their device for a reasonable price?

If you know anything about technology point to another device that is packed with as much as the Switch for the same price. The device is definitely worth $300, now you or other people may not see that and that's okay. But I don't think we need to minimize what the Switch is doing for portable gaming, forget what Nintendo says this system is definitely the successor to the 3ds as well. 

I agree.
It's surprising how well some Gamecube titles hold up when Emulated on the PC.
The art-style in Luigi's Mansion a game released a decade and half ago has aged pretty well all things considered.