Updated the OP community table with the latest data, thanks again!

It looks good

I will not use those estimated Vita usage numbers, but the LPDDR2 RAM speed should be 8.5GB/s, right? The SD RAM is then 34GB/s?

In here they mention 4MB cache extra in the CPUs, that's why I increased it from 32MB.

Yes it is?

While half of the Wii U's resources were dedicated to the OS and background features, only 1/4 are on the Switch.

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong or he edited it after you posted? This looks like a major, listening-to-3rd-party-developers improvement over the Wii U.

Btw, I realize form factor plays a big role in this and they'd get grief for leaving the possibility open as everyone would then suggest it is an additional required expenditure by default, but I really wish I could just add some RAM to my Switch lol... it's such a cheap and big improvement on the PC, and while it's likely not optimized yet, I really feel like a little more RAM would finish off the last of the frame rate issues on BotW.

3gb of ram is unacceptable for major third party games in 2017. Even a game like Overwatch would be difficult to port to the Switch according to the devs and its not even that demanding of a game.  But personally for me its not a big deal ill buy my third parties on PC/Xbox and ill buy Nintendo games on the Switch when i buy one.

That certainly hasn't been what devs have been suggesting, though; all we've heard over the last half year is how they're finding it easier than expected to port their games to the Switch.

3 gb of RAM isn't a lot, but it's not a deal-breaker either. 

Should be 12.8GB/s and 3.2GB/s respectively. It should noted, I wouldn't take that those numbers as gospel though, not untill there is enough definitive sources.

Overwatch runs happily on PC's that have 3-4GB of Ram.
I don't think people understand how light and how scalable overwatch really is, it can run on a toaster/PC's from the last console generation.

By respectively you meant 12.8GB/s for LPDDR2 or the SD RAM?

Will keep those numbers you mentioned with a question mark at the end. But looking more and more complete.

12.8GB/s is for the SD Ram, the SD Ram is what the GPU uses and is what needs the bandwidth more.

would be nice to know if the fourth core on Switch which is reserved for the OS can be utilized by games – when reading something from the storage into RAM this should be an OS call. And thus it could or even better should run on the fourth core.

It was rumoured that the internal Flash has 400MB/s, external a minimum of 80MB/s read bandwith. As it is flash random I/O shouldn't be that big penalty as it is on PS4/XOne.

So 3 GB is more then sufficient on the Switch as content could be read in as needed. As Xenoblade 2 and Zelda BotW has proven on the "underpowered" Wii U that internal storage usage can do wonders. And Zelda BotW on the Switch runs even fine from the cartridge.

That means that even more demanding games can/will utilize the internal storage and we will see games which many people think are impossible on the Switch.

That's what I assumed and updated the table with, but it seemed like you flipped them in the response, was just making sure. Thanks!

Like it's been stated a few times in the thread, it's a precaution for which Nintendo reserves part of the hardware to the OS. Whatever plans they have for it, later on they might be able to free some of that to developers.

And good points on the internal flash comments. The 32GB eMMC is the fastest storage Switch has available between the gamecarts and microSDs.

Should remember it was Capcom that got the memory of Switch upped from 2GB to 4GB because they stated they couldn't get some of their latest engines working in 2GB which was the Switch's original design memory.

The figure of 1 core and 1GB used for the Switch os is on early release firmware and could be improved but I suspect the firmware will get many additions and it will never be reduced but the operating system will get many great features added like saving video, more apps and other functionality that will require cpu processing.

The big little arrangement of the X1 was designed by Nvidia and not ARM and unfortunately it can only use 4 cores at a time. As far as we know Nintendo has disabled this completely and a custom revision of the chip could actually remove the small CPU's and use the space for something else. It's possible to do design nips and tucks especially if it goes to 16nm that will not effect compatibility but could add increased battery life and prevent memory bottlenecking and frame drops. Alternatively some processing currently on support chips could be moved into the SOC, wifi processing which again would speed up the system and still be compatible. So a later Switch revision could be nicely improved with better frame rates without losing compatibility. It will mean the early Switch's are inferior though which is a kick in the teeth to early adopters.

With the 32GB storage being on a daughter board its pretty clear Nintendo had designed the Switch with regard higher capacity models, so we may see 64GB and 128GB models too and they seem to have designed the system so internal storage outperforms third party SD cards so those wanting the best performance will go with these premium Switch models. 32GB models will probably represent entry level at some point and new colours and special editions with higher capacity storage the premium end.

For reference I think the ps3 uses one cell processor out of 7 for the operating system and doesn't touch the dual thread main powerpc cpu and I think the Xbox 360 uses one of its 6 threads for the operating system. For audio processing I think again the PS3 uses one cell processor and unsure on 360. The original xbox has a dedicated 5.1 audio chip but I think the 360 has to process audio from its cpu so possibly another thread or partial thread used. So the Switch is using a lot more of its resources for the background operating system.

I think we should be looking at 360 and PS3 for comparable performance to Switch. In some ways they are superior, memory bandwidth and cpu performance and in some ways inferior gpu architecture and lower memory capacity but I think they represent what is achievable by Switch thereabouts. Both original ps4 and xbone are hugely more powerful than Switch but then Switch is a portable and really should be compared to ios, android and vita plus maybe windows tablets. If you want to compare to a home console it should be the last gen models.

The difference between Dragon Quest on ps4 and Nintendo Switch is a comparable gulf to those of ps4 and ps3 or xbox one and xbox 360.

As ever with Nintendo its going to be interesting to see what can be achieved with their hardware and how it compares to the best games on other portable systems.