What hard evidence do you have that .8 Tflops (260Mhz) is "all it is going to be capable of with a 10Nm/8Nm fabricated chipset."? That is a very specific number to go off of based on the very rough heuristic you're suggesting here.

Process node matters in the chip efficiency, but it isn't the only thing that matters. Actual chip architecture matters too, and we don't have anything to compare this chip to. There is no "Nvidia Shield TV" for the Switch 2. It is a semi-custom chip where as the Switch's chip was the same exact chip with a few very minor modifications as what existed in the Shield.

Comparing to the power scaling of Ryzen and Celeron laptops that are using x86 chipsets that target a higher TDP from the start isn't a proper comparison as well. 

If the Switch 2 handheld's target max GPU clock is 561Mhz (which seems likely) then it isn't in dispute. Handheld mode is 1.71 Tflops in its highest power state, which would correspond with the 2 hour battery life. 

Where does the 561Mhz come from? The same people that leaked everything else.

If Switch 2's GPU is in the ballpark of what they estimate here (RTX 2050) along with the CPU estimate, the test results for Monster Hunter Wild are particularly interesting then, since that's a game I'd presume both capcom and Nintendo would really want to see on the Switch hardware.

Docked Mode:
720p Low Settings with DLSS On - 20fps

Handheld:

Docked Mode:
720p Low Settings with DLSS On - 15fps

Could someone that understands DLSS better explain why the visuals are that blurry if it's upscaling from 240p to 720p?
It looks like it's still 240p.

With Wilds being as poorly optimized as it is, even good GPU's are struggling with this title. So I'm curious if they'll try to get it to a playable state on Switch 2. Or if they'll do another Switch oriented MH game again instead.

I'm not an expert... but reconstructing a 240p image (we are talking early Youtube resolutions here, it's very low resolution) into a 720p one has to be pretty damn difficult for the AI. My guess is it doesn't have enough information to generate a good quality image.

Oh yeah it's from 240. I was thinking 480.
I've tried 480 into 720 in another game, and the results looked fine, so I wasn't sure what was going on with this.

MH Wilds is so ridiculously poorly optimized with things like two different DRMs (unnecessary) bombing CPU performance because Capcom was worried about piracy on the PC that badly.

If you can get even 16-20 fps completely unoptimized on similar hardware, IMO if you had a dev team really sit and work on a version speicfically for the Switch 2 for 10-11 months, you could have a playable version with significantly better performance.

The code is seriously poorly optimized, everyone and their grandma knows that now.

People forget btw that the only freaking reason Monster Hunter ever took off as a franchise is because Capcom took the PS2 version of the game which wasn't very popular and made a retooled version of it for the PSP portable and that took off like a rocket in Japan selling millions of copies, for a long time MH was primarily a portable IP. 

It's easier nowadays to scale engines even if you have to roll up your sleeves and optimize, that's well worth it for several million in sales potentially. 

The 2050 they're testing on also again only has 4GB of VRAM, the game really needs more than that so that's going to hit the performance as well.

Yeah, MHW is really terribly optimized for how average (at best) it actually looks.

I only mentioned the Celeron and Ryzen purely because the Celeron with its lower power draw extends the life of the battery pack considerably just as a positive benefit of the Switch 2 being lower performance than first thought now that we have that video that analyses the spec. That video doesn't really factor in battery power to their equation but their figure for portable performance is comparable to GTX 750 Ti which is about 1.4 Teraflops but consuming up to 12-17W, someone has put a figure of 800 Gflops as peak performance in portable mode for 2 hours use. I assume they have done the analysis of battery consumption. On face value I would of thought my figure of 600 Gflops was more accurate as it can probably only consume a max of 5-6W in total excluding the screen. So the Switch 2 can do short life peak power of around 1.4 Teraflops in portable mode but it can't maintain that for 2 hours. Of course the final figure is not known, maybe Nintendo have over-stated the minimum 2 hours runtime and the reality is only 90 minutes for portable mode and the clocks can go up again. Everyone is agreed  that 20Wh is the battery though and this video confirms a much more power hungry chipset than first thought. I guess we need someone to analyse the power consumption of this chip based on this new information from this video. We are still guessing with regard portable performance because the 20Wh battery doesn't seem to be factored in. There is going to be fantastic analysis in a few weeks I'm sure of retail hardware and how much power it is consuming in portable mode.

Ultimately I think we have to be realistic based on the information that is coming our way at the moment, the chipset is a much cheaper fabrication process than first expected and it is clear the design is relying on DLSS upscaling heavily to compensate for a cheap power hungry chipset. The picture is building of a fairly low spec console with regard graphics hardware but very decent CPU performance that takes it way beyond PS4 for example. It's a clever design that has enough CPU performance to do the main code of modern games with optimisation and then the output state of the graphics is upscaled. For a long time the information we have heard about Switch 2 was a console that relied heavily on upscaling and that is the reality surely that we know now.

The reason why you can't compare the power-efficiency of a (down-clocked) RTX 2050 to the power-efficiency of a T239 is because they are different chips that target different power profiles, have different SOC (not micro, SOC) architectures, and therefore different power-efficiency curves. The comparison makes sense from a performance perspective (even if rough) but not the power-efficiency perspective. There also is the matter of the different CPUs. 

This is true even if the GPUs are both Ampere. 

I'll provide an example of why this is the case, 

Consider the RTX A2000 and RTX 3050. They both have a GA106 die. The A2000, however; has 3328 cores clocked at 562* - 1200 Mhz while the RTX 3050 has 2560 cores clocked at 1552 - 1777 Mhz. The A2000 slightly performs better than the RTX 3050 in games and compute. Yet the RTX A2000 pulls about 70W at full utilization and the RTX 3050 pulls about 115W - 130W at full utilization in its original form. 

Now this is for cards that have the same GA106 (just cut and clocked differently.) 

The GA107 in the RTX 2050 Mobile is even more different from the T239 than that. 

*Notice the 562Mhz here, this likely isn't a coincidence, that probably corresponds with an actual power-state. 

As to the exercise of halving the TFLOPs, you'll notice that the 1.84 Tflops PS4-equivalent performs worse than the 1.39 TFlops GTX 750ti on that benchmark. TFlops and real-world performance are only loosely related, and you really can't extrapolate one from the other when comparing the performance across architectures. 

Also the curves are not linear, so halving the GPU's power utilization doesn't necessarily mean halving its performance. The curves do become near-linear after some low-point, but there is reason to believe that a T239 has that point shifted leftward compared to an RTX 2050, due to their different power-targets. 

As an example, this is what a power-performance curve of an A5000 (light-blue) looks like. 

or the power-performance curve of a Steam Deck Oled. 

Notice that at 6.5W it is retaining 83% of the performance as it has at 12W (1500Mhz vs. 1800Mhz, all else equal.) Power utilization nearly halved (6.5/12 ~ 55%), but theoretical performance** didn't (1500/1800 ~ 83%.) 

**TFlops are proportional to clock-rate and core-count. Core-count is a constant here. 

For the same capacitance, power consumption is a function of frequency times voltage squared. The second component is crucial to consider due to its quadratic scaling.

AFAIK, with these low clocks, the Switch 2's GPU can run close to or at the minimum voltage its components would even take to work. It should be as efficient as it can be (for that node, that is).

FF7 Remake Intergrade PS5 vs Switch 2 ... not too shabby. Side by side comparisons starting at 3:00 are very impressive.