If they were using it purely for the framebuffer, 16MB of ESRAM would have sufficed for drawing a 1080p image.

Rather, they used it for render targets because at this point deferred renderers were finally gaining traction.

eSRAM has gotten a second life anyway... Case in point RDNA2 with it's Infinity Cache... The 6600XT for instance has just 32MB, just like the Xbox One.
SRAM caches definitely have a place... As AMD has showcased with Infinity Cache. (Essentially a chunky L3 for the GPU.)

I don't know if many people would describe the Wii U as a hybrid system, more like a stationary console that has a controller with a screen on it that can play games on it. 

Technically I think even PS4 could do this if you had a Vita. But that's actually not the point, the point of contention and controversy prior to the Switch unveiling was Nintendo will not abandon the 2-system per generation setup they had going for almost three decades by that point because it was established tradition that Nintendo must have 2, even 3 distinct hardware products per generation (one portable, one home console at minimum). 

You can watch the hilarious reactions of people like Supermetaldave64 who were 100% sure the Switch could not be a hybrid, or if it was it couldn't be the only system Nintendo would make, there had to be a standard home console only and they were stunned by the Switch reveal. 

Having followed gaming for generations going back to the 80s even, there is no generation where certain trusted historical precedents aren't broken. Rules always change and evolve, 12 years ago if you told people here that Nintendo would amalgamate their home console and portable hardware into one unified device no one would believe you. 

If you said Playstation 5 and XBox Series X would have no major exclusives 2 years into their product cycle even from Sony and Microsoft themselves, no one would've believed that even 5 years ago. 

Companies only adhere to "historical precedents" if it serves their purpose in the present day/future, if it doesn't, they abandon and change things all the time. Also just announcing a new hardware doesn't really mean a whole lot, everyone knows Playstation 6, XBox Next, Switch 2, etc. etc. are already into development, Switch 2 probably nearing the end of its development cycle if it isn't in the full on prototype stage already.  

Sure. I don't think that is a disagreement. The 32 MB of eSRAM definitely does help with total realizable memory management, albeit it takes up a lot of space on the SoC at the expense of other resources. The interesting discussion is whether or not if Microsoft decided to go the expensive route and keep the DDR3 + eSRAM setup, but also have a bigger SoC that could match the PS4 by not compromising on other resources. (This wouldn't make sense to do, but we're talking hypothetically.) Would it "have had a graphics edge by a significant margin?" I think it would depend on a game-by-game basis and the nature of the assets being streamed from the memory to the CPU. Any title that was designed around a few but larger assets would probably advantage the PS4, while anything with many smaller assets would probably advantage the hypothetical XBO. 

Bold 1: This is only true for a raw 1080p image. Not for one using antialiasing like SSAA, FSAA, MSAA, etc. Which is helpful for rendering targets as the implementation of AA is harder with deferred rendering. 

Bold 2: Almost all CPU caches are made with SRAM, so of course SRAM has a place. 

Bold 2: Almost all CPU caches are made with SRAM, so of course SRAM has a place. 

I don't know if many people would describe the Wii U as a hybrid system, more like a stationary console that has a controller with a screen on it that can play games on it. 

Technically I think even PS4 could do this if you had a Vita. But that's actually not the point, the point of contention and controversy prior to the Switch unveiling was Nintendo will not abandon the 2-system per generation setup they had going for almost three decades by that point because it was established tradition that Nintendo must have 2, even 3 distinct hardware products per generation (one portable, one home console at minimum). 

You can watch the hilarious reactions of people like Supermetaldave64 who were 100% sure the Switch could not be a hybrid, or if it was it couldn't be the only system Nintendo would make, there had to be a standard home console only and they were stunned by the Switch reveal. 

Having followed gaming for generations going back to the 80s even, there is no generation where certain trusted historical precedents aren't broken. Rules always change and evolve, 12 years ago if you told people here that Nintendo would amalgamate their home console and portable hardware into one unified device no one would believe you. 

If you said Playstation 5 and XBox Series X would have no major exclusives 2 years into their product cycle even from Sony and Microsoft themselves, no one would've believed that even 5 years ago. 

Companies only adhere to "historical precedents" if it serves their purpose in the present day/future, if it doesn't, they abandon and change things all the time. Also just announcing a new hardware doesn't really mean a whole lot, everyone knows Playstation 6, XBox Next, Switch 2, etc. etc. are already into development, Switch 2 probably nearing the end of its development cycle if it isn't in the full on prototype stage already.  

Correct.  Just because I bought something doesn't mean I have to use it.  And I'm guessing via Switch sales Nvidia is selling more than expected.  I would suspect their relationship with Nintendo is quite nice at the moment.  

Personally I am happy to upgrade...  but I've been told every year for 3 years now...  a new Switch is coming...  still waiting.  Will there ever be a point where people accept there isn't a Switch Pro?

There were so many crazy assertions on what the Switch was/wasn't before it's unveil. Heck. Even as recently as the Switch OLED being a 4k gaming device.

I still believe that the rumors were true, but Nintendo decided at the last minute to scrap the idea on a big upgrade over the regular Switch. Cause when you have a look to the rumours, this is pretty much what we had back then:

- new Switch with bigger OLED screen

- ethernet port

- bigger internal memory

- "MS Surface-like stand"

- 4K output

- upcoming games to be "4K ready"

And we got pretty much everything correct, and even the new dock can technically output 4K and 120fps (I don't recall if it was at the same time or just 4k@60 or 1080p@120fps) EXCEPT for the new Tegra chip.

And yet... It didn't actually happen.
It's not like Nintendo did a bait-and-switch at the last moment and opted to retain the old chip, these things are planned years in advance.

More than likely it was a simple mix up. 

Production line leaks (correctly) pointed to a Nintendo Switch model with an OLED screen and new dock and if you're also getting info on a new dev kit with a new chip, the natural assumption would be this is probably all for one model instead of being two different devices. Pretty easy mistake to make.