Well it is actually fairly close in power to wii u/ps3/360 in portable mode but gets a boost to graphics only in docked mode to allow higher resolutions. It isn't significantly more powerful than wii u anyway but can run code off cartridge and the OS in the background may be significantly simplified compared to wi u. wii u actually used 1GB of its memory for the OS which is huge and not the norm. 

Again all will be revealed with the tear-down that is sure to happen. Memory chips are labelled and as soon as a Switch is opened up the information will be there unlike other facets of the specification which take time to work out.

Look at Arms, that game runs at 1080p and 60fps and is clearly a level above Mario Kart 8 on the Wii U.Fast RMX also runs at 1080p and 60fps, just like Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XMpHv5SHpc&t=7s

And here's footage from a new battle map in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe in portable mode. Looks very crisp and sharp. 

Didn't think Arms looked that impressive myself. It's a fairly simple concept graphically. Mario kart is 720p 60fps on wii u or Switch in portable mode and boosted to 1080p for docked. Like wii u for four players frame rate drops to 30fps. Fast RMX does not  impress me sadly its the type of simple game that can have high frame rates. Creating a complex world like Skyrim and still doing 60fps. 

All the evidence I've seen both in specs and how the Switch performs indicates a small boost in performance over wii u in portable mode and a resolution boost for docked. This is not a system to run full xbox one or ps4 games that push those consoles. Happy to change my opinion as new evidence appears though. I'd love Switch to be a success because I like Nintendo as a company but frankly it just looks awful to me as a system.

There is no confirmation of that surprisingly at this stage. Nintendo announced the 2GB memory of the wii u quite freely but with Switch they aren't being as clear. It's also higher than the more powerful competition using the same chipset and rumours also suggested it was originally going to be 2GB but the retail version would match the development kit with 4GB. I'm not totally convinced and won't believe it until Nintendo states 4GB or we see it in the tear-down. It just seems too much for a console of this performance level. With the Nvidia shield box only having 3GB yet meant to be a gaming centric box supporting 4k and hdr  and yet the lower spec Switch has more memory all of which needs to be powered by battery in portable mode and lowering runtime it just makes no sense at all. The Switch has its 4 main cpu's running at half the speed of the Shield and doesn't feature the other 4 little arm chips at all yet needs even more memory?  It's a strange design choice if nothing else. It made total sense the dev kit had 4GB as headroom for developing and a final retail version would be down to 2GB to extend battery life and reduce costs. In a few weeks we will know anyway. 

Well the original eurogamer article on final spec is here.

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

and the analysis of the other leak is here;

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1334549

It seems to me the original eurogamer spec is more accurate. 

While I agree the Nvidia gpu is more capable than its gflops figure indicates compared to wii u its important you don't just run away with ridiculous performance claims. The same comparison was made with the wii u over ps3 and 360 and the end result was not that the wii u easily beat them despite the lower gflops figure it actually struggled despite the generational difference. Remember the gflops figure is an indication of its performance level allowing for its later architecture. What was fantastic performance of 250 gflops in 2005 is pretty much base level now. 

Lets not forget if the wii u has 176 gflops for its main gpu and up to 24 gflops asisst from its wii gpu plus 70GB/s of high speed memory for its frame buffer that is pretty good compared to 150 gflops and 25.6GB/s shared memory. When I say a overall 30% increase I'm not exactly being unfair I'm giving the nvidia alot of allowance for its later architecture possibly too much.

Look at Arms, that game runs at 1080p and 60fps and is clearly a level above Mario Kart 8 on the Wii U.Fast RMX also runs at 1080p and 60fps, just like Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.

To play devil's advocate here, I can think of PS3/360 games that look better than ARMS.

Also, those games may run at 1080p when docked, but they're 720p when mobile, which is the mode bonzo was referring to.

I can't, most PS3 games I've played looked ugly as fuck and they certainly don't run at 1080p. And 720p on a small screen blows 1080p on a big TV out of the water, so what's your point? 

Halo 4, Xbox 360

ARMS, Switch

Arms looks a lot better, just look at the texturing on Master Mummy compared to the low poly enemies of Halo 4. Besides, you took a capture from a stream versus a direct capture.