Good thing it's not meant to compete with the PS4 at that rate.

That's highly debateable. I'd say Star Wars Battlefront or Battlefield 1 at max settings and 60fps looks superior to anything on PS4.

To me what I think this proves more so than anything is that Eurogamer's initial specs leak was not only old information but not final clocks as they hammered home for people to run with as a definite. They also go on to compare the Chinese Switch teardown to the newly released Nvidia Shield TV which also uses a modified version of the Tegra X1.

I wish they would have done a comparison to the older Sheild TV because that would have made more sense!

Even on Pro, BF1 uses the low setting for motion blur, medium for terrain, while shadows, particles, depth of field, reflections, etc all operate below PC's top settings.

I never took the Foxconn leak seriously. The leaker thought the Switch had a 1080P screen.

Probably the boosted mode, would explain it's battery life.

I can point you to hardware that would have increased it's performance by a good 50% for the same amount of power.

25.6GB/s of bandwidth docked, 21GB/s undocked.
Delta Colour Compression in an ideal situation would make that 33.28GB/s and 27.3GB/s. Ironically, that's a bandwidth that is well suited to 720P.

CPU wise, ARM A53 quads should beat the Wii U's PowerPC CPU with ease.

As for the cores themselves... ARM A57 > Jaguar > ARM A53 > PowerPC 750 at about the same clocks.

The real caveat is clockrates and core counts... Jaguar is probably going to be clocked higher than the Switch (And use more power) and will have twice the CPU cores for gaming.
So the Playstation 4 and Xbox One could have roughly 3x-4x the CPU performance all told, if not more. But that does depend on the Switch's clock rates being at about 1Ghz~

Yep. A57 wins by about 10-15% at similar clocks to Jaguar...

It just shows how mediocre Jaguar really is though.

No way. Battlefield 1... 144fps and in eyefinity with everything dialed up to 11 is a *massive* difference over the consoles.
4k Eyefinity is a resolution of 11,520 x 2160 verses the Playstation 4 Pro's anemic 2560x1440 or 4k. - And the PC can step that up higher again.

The Graphics settings of Battlefield 1 still fall short of the PC's high settings, let-alone ultra, heck the Playstation 4 Pro's terrain quality is medium, not even high, PC beats it out with motion blur, depth of field, particles, ambient occolusion and more as well.

The PC version is still the definitive version and the best way to play it if graphics and performance are important.

The most powerful portable device appears to be the iPad Pro, as it beat the Tegra X1 (which should be comparable to the Switch):

https://gfxbench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=gfxgen&did1=26084812&os1=Android&api1=gl&hwtype1=GPU&hwname1=NVIDIA(R)+Tegra(R)+X1&D2=Apple+iPad+Pro

Although it is not a "console", it still plays Pokemon Go, Super Mario Run, Fire Emblem Heroes, Madden, FIFA, Skylanders, Just Dance, Minecraft, Rayman, NBA 2K17 and a whole bunch more, at much higher than 720p resolution. No Zelda though...

– Digital Foundry says Switch is “by far and away the most powerful handheld console ever made, backed by a dedicated API designed to extract maximum performance from the hardware”

What you made is basically like if I go into a "Ps4 pro is the most powerful console" thread and start to name PC models

Isn't that how the internet works?  :)

Anyhow, I think the comparison is still valid, since I believe that the handheld market is transitioning to the mobile market, with phones and tablets being the preferred portable gaming device.

Most of those games could run on a Wii. 

Not at 720P.