So, it's priced like a novelty, doesn't include the DLCs, it comes in a GKC AND it has dogshit performance. I think they literally made the worst port they could xD

Atlus is the worst.

TSMC is definitely more expensive than Samsung. 
Samsung can't compete with TSMC on lithography, so they compete on price.

Mediatek Helio G99 is built on TSMC 6nm process, which is based on the 7nm process... But it's a mid-range SoC with a small die-size, so they are able to get a ton of functional chips per wafer, which is how they can justify it.
Plus... Mediatek have "bulk contracts" for a plethora of different chips at different lithographies, so they are able to negotiate a bulk contracted price for multiple different chips at different sizes and complexities to drive down price... Something Nintendo can't do with their single chip.

The Tegra chips also tend to be a bit larger than their contemporaries due to the investment in the graphics side of the equation.

Also, Gflops is a useless metric that doesn't tell us comparative performance... Especially as the Helio uses a tiled based graphics chip anyway.

Gflops and Teraflops is bullshit. Just going to leave it at that... It doesn't tell us integer throughput, says nothing of geometry/pixel/texel fillrates, doesn't account for Ray Tracing capabilities or A.I. inference performance, alone it's a useless metric.

The power consumption of the chip in the Switch 2 is actually designed to run at higher power levels comparable to chips like we are seeing in PC handhelds, chips have a performance/power consumption curve and Nintendo with the aid of nVidia adjusted it to fit the handheld form factor for sustained use. - And that's the key... Sustained use, not boosted or temporary clocks that drop once thermals reach a threshold.

Where they can make-up performance due to lower clockrates and voltage curves is with low-level API's, which has always been the strength of consoles relative to the PC.

If you "limit" PC handheld TDP's you can curb power consumption and boost efficiency substantially to the point of being comparable to the Switch 2, but because integrated AMD graphics are a generation behind desktop, you don't have techniques like A.I upscaling to bridge the gap, so image quality tends to suffer as a result.

That will be resolved once AMD eventually leaves behind RDNA 2/3 integrated graphics on it's APU's and embraces UDNA/RDNA4/RDNA5 graphics eventually... But backporting FSR4 has shown some interesting results on Steamdeck.

OLED is a must... If I need to pick and chose a handheld to take with me, I always reach for my Switch 1 OLED, it just looks and runs better thanks to that OLED panel.
The Switch 2's poor performing LCD doesn't do it any favors, especially in games with lots of darkness or really massive contrast differences.

And the fact Nintendo didn't add VRR to the Switch 2 via HDMI output was a silly decision to make... Which could be resolved with a revision.

It also highlights a level of risk for all three companies in the event of a console failing... For Nintendo it's a massive impact, which is why they don't subsidize hardware, so even if they had poor sales, they are still making money and reduces risk so they can justify a successor.

Redlynx continues to improve Star wars Outlaws, upgrading performance, textures, and pop-in

https://www.gonintendo.com/contents/54098-star-wars-outlaws-patch-3-now-available-on-switch-2

Goes to show the difference that having more time to optimize makes

I honestly don't think TSMC is that expensive compared to Samsung and in fact it seems like TSMC is on a different scale of orders to Samsung's fabrications. Even the cheapest nastiest tablets and smartphones have chips fabricated by TSMC which admittedly would be a older fabrication process but you only have to step up a bit to see fabrications better than Switch 2 on far cheaper devices. It is Nvidia that sells the T239 chip to Nintendo so obviously it is Nvidia that deals with the fabricator and places orders and of course in recent times they have switched from Samsung to TSMC for their later chips but the T239 was designed around Samsung's 8Nm (really 10Nm mainly) process which is what Nvidia were using at the time for their PC chipsets and Nintendo might already have been in possession of 100s of thousands of pre-fabricated T239 chips anyway from the aborted Switch Pro model. Also the size of the Switch 2 T239 is mid-level it is neither small or large in die area there are more complicated chips out there. 

Gflops is still widely used, yes everyone knows its a general indication only but its widely used, Geekerwan used it with their comparison, Techpowerup still lists it for all graphics chipsets etc. No one is saying it is perfect but often gflops is criticised in forums because a person wants to blur everything and create a defence for weaker graphics cards. We all know results will vary depending on how game engines use that graphics card, if its used on a fixed platform and what other resources the gpu have but it is still a widely used metric for the industry despite its weaknesses. We all know there are other huge factors like memory bandwidth and upscaling technologies, ray tracing etc. There is absolutely no point constantly saying gflops isn't perfect as we all know that but it still is the only generalised part of the spec that can be used. You can't compare a Switch 2 to a Steam Deck visually directly because the Switch 2 version is custom designed from the ground up to work with the hardware where as the Steam Deck just gets a generalised PC version. Lots of things are scaled back for the weaker hardware. The whole industry still uses gflops despite its huge flaws to give a GENERAL indication of potential power independent of the CPU typically and it will be in the right ballpark area. Each GPU architecture has strengths and weaknesses which of course is not incorporated in a simple gflops figure and even the gflops figure itself is split into fp16, fp32 and fp64 and those figures vary with different cards so one card good at fp32 maybe considerably weaker than the other card it is being compared to at fp16 for example but generally it is the fp32 figure compared which is used most often in game engines.  

On the Switch 2 I've seen enough developer reports on how they optimise for Switch 2, they simplify code, remove some minor features with high GPU or CPU requirements to create a game engine with good fps on weaker hardware which has always been the case for fixed platforms. They drive the hardware better with more direct access to the chipsets. They create a conversion with not much important missing so a good game experience. It's not that the Switch 2 has amazing magically hardware that isn't shown in the gflops figures its just fixed platform optimisations. Same was true of PS4, Switch 1 and all fixed platforms basically. The Switch 2 chipset was designed back in 2019/2020 and its release was stalled for many years. It's an old architecture now which has been improved upon a few times in later chipsets. 

Comparing my old RX 580 to my gaming laptop with RTX 2050 mobile. The gflops figure is about the same but the RX 580 is much, much older but a desktop GPU with more memory bandwidth but lacks some of the modern features of the RTX 2050 mobile. The RTX 2050 is far superior to the T239 on just about every level but still performs lower than the RX 580. This is often the case with mobile chips which are more power restrained.

https://technical.city/en/video/Radeon-RX-580-vs-GeForce-RTX-2050-mobile

It's like sometimes you read postings where the person is pretending that just because the architecture is newer it is magically superior on every level that certainly isn't true. I absolutely love my RTX 2050 laptop, it was £350 well spent but it doesn't quite perform as well as my dusty old desktop pc. I was playing Cyberpunk on that card what seems like 5 years ago now with 40-60fps with decent detail settings.

With the announcement of Assassin's Creed Shadows, and the reveal trailer looking pretty decent, it's gonna be interesting to see how that turns out as an ambitious, open world current gen only title.

After all the FUD and downplaying around launch about how it "won't be able to handle current gen games", Switch 2 is turning out to be pretty capable after all.

One of many reasons why TFLOPs shouldn't be compared across micro-architectures. 

https://www.tomshardware.com/features/nvidia-ampere-architecture-deep-dive

"With Turing, Nvidia said that in many games (looking at a broad cross section of games), roughly 35% of the CUDA core calculations were integer workloads. Memory pointer lookups are a typical example of this. If that ratio still holds, one third of all GPU calculations in a game will be INT calculations, which potentially occupy more than half of the FP32+INT portion of the SMs."

Besides, we know with >99% certainty the max TFLOPs the SW2 currently supports (unless GPU clocks are lifted it's set in stone) because we know the max clock rates and core counts. There is no point speculating on well-knowns like that. 

We all know different GPU architectures have different design elements that are both better than the competition and worse. Lots of things about AMD and Intel graphics architectures have been both praised and criticised compared to Nvidia. Their efficiency varies for different tasks. Do you have an example of a two same matching generation graphic chipsets from different vendors that compete against each other where they have similar Gflops but wildly different frame rates as an average across all games? I should add without using AI upscaling etc unless that is your point that AI upscaling allows a weak GPU to punch above its weight which is what I've been saying for a long time. The industry uses Gflops as a general indication of performance only just to give a approximate indicator of performance. We shouldn't pretend a old Nvidia design from 2019/2020 with limited memory bandwidth, limited power to use is somehow this super efficient design that even with a very dated fabrication process can compete with more advanced GPUs. I've got a far more powerful and later architecture Nvidia GPU in my laptop capable of a lot more performance and a CPU with about 7x the processing power, more memory bandwidth and its no miracle GPU its competing in its class quite well, weak in some areas, better in others. Obviously its much better than Switch 2 but there is no fixed platform optimisations so its not 2-3x docked or 4-5x portable of that of the Switch 2 because some of that performance is lost in not being a fixed platform for its gpu. It's certainly far superior but just not what you would expect when you compare the Switch 2 spec directly with it. I'm very happy with it but I only get around 1-2 hours battery life out of it (nearer 1 hour to be honest maybe 1hr 20 minutes) and its unusable as a portable system with the Nvidia GPU. When I use the laptop for portable gaming I use the laptops own AMD igpu which is on a more advanced fabrication process 7Nm vs 8/10Nm of the RTX 2050 and of course less powerful at about 1.5 Teraflops to get 2-3 hours plus a lot less fan noise. The laptop can last about 10-12 hours maximum just browsing, office etc on economy settings with the AMD igpu. Obviously the laptop has a much larger 15.6" 144Hz screen which consumes a lot more power.

We shouldn't confuse what is mainly fixed platform optimisations with some sort of pretend miracle architecture from a old Nvidia design from 2019 using a very old fabrication process. I have a old Athlon 5350 pc with a radeon graphics card. The CPU is overclocked to about 2.6-2.7Ghz so is a match for PS4 CPU performance (all AMD Jaguar cores), admittedly it doesn't quite have the same memory bandwidth but its a fairly close match to the original PS4 in spec, the GPU is a little more powerful just over 2 Teraflops. If I was to say it performed a half as well as a PS4 I would probably be lying. The PS4 is like a generation above thanks to fixed platform optimisations. From memory its a R9 270 which replaced a R7 250 I think when I got the RX 580 for a different pc. Anyway you get my point fixed platform optimisations is a huge upgrade in performance for consoles. So any comparison involving Switch 2 must assume huge fixed platform performance boosts even if a lot of stuff has been scaled back or removed to create that performance. If you are wondering why I kept a old Athlon 5350 pc for so long its in a compact PC case so fits under the TV without problems. Where as my other PC is in a midi size case.

We do have examples of different real-world performance/TFLOP from different architectures. 

For example, RDNA2 GPUs systematically perform (in rasterization) about 1.3 times Ampere TFLOP-for-TFLOP. And that is because Nvidia has designed their cores in a way that they could utilize mixed INT32/FP32 or fully dedicate all of that core's throughput to FP32 (if there is no INT32 code-execution.) So even though when running a pure FP32 workload Nvidia's TFLOPs are accurate, this doesn't fully translate to proportional game performance as you would have expected because some cores (when gaming) need to be utilized in the mixed mode. And as sourced from Nvidia, about a third of GPU utilization in rasterized loads is integer arithmetic not floating point. 

As a concrete example, an RX 6800 performs about as well as an RTX 3070ti. The RX 6800 is 16.17 FP32 TFLOPs and the RTX 3070ti is 21.75 FP32 TFLOPs.

TFLOPs only make sense when you 1. compare according to the same architecture (and even then other aspects of the GPU can affect performance) or 2. are talking about a pure FP workload. 

The rest of your post isn't relevant to the specific discussion of TFLOPs and whether we should use them as a general performance indicator because real-world gaming performance is not measured in TFLOPs. TFLOPs are just how much pure FP (32 in this case) arithmetic can be done at max GPU clock rates. it is a function of clock rate, and core count with various constant factors (which vary from architecture to architecture.)

If we were talking about pure FP workloads then we could use it as a general performance indicator, but gaming is not that. It is a mixed workload. 

As a side-note, your RTX 2050 probably would outperform (maybe only slightly) your iGPU and still have good battery life if you capped its clock-rate with the iGPU disabled (which you probably can't do without a MUX switch.) 

Furukawa-era of Nintendo is just different, you would never in a million years under Iwata see TV commercials like this Metroid Prime 4 spot which is highlighting 120 FPS performance as a central part of the game's marketing:

The first Nintendo hardware released under Furukawa was also the Switch OLED, which also I think is a subtle but telling change of direction for Nintendo. In the past Nintendo wouldn't market a hardware revision based around a screen technology specifically, OLED is something "Casual Joe" wouldn't even know, they don't know the differences in screen display technology. But Nintendo did it and now you see hardware vendors like Steam copying that exact hardware progression (regular model to OLED model). 

Even when you look at the Switch OLED and Switch 2 ... both the main OLED model (the white one) and the Switch 2 look a lot less ... toy like than previous Nintendo hardware. Less color, more of a premium electronics feel. 

Switch Lite was under Kimishima, Furukawa came in after that had released so Switch OLED and Switch 2 are the two hardware products under his leadership. Nintendo isn't chasing ridiculous tier performance, but performance is definitely back on the menu, Switch 2 official marketing and even mainstream marketing like TV spots make note of things like 4K resolution and 120 FPS, something Nintendo didn't do even with the GameCube. 

I think Nintendo hardware will more competent going forward under Furukawa with equal emphasis on having good performance at a reasonable cost (not dirt cheap, but not ridiculously expensive either). The new hardware designers at Nintendo and the president are younger and likely have more modern ideas about hardware than the older farts on Nintendo's board who are now retired or gone did. Those guys grew up in the 1950s/60s before game consoles even existed, the new wave of Nintendo leadership and hardware designers are guys who grew up in the 1990s, definitely going to be a difference there. 

Switch 2 being called the Switch 2 even in the past I 100% bet Nintendo's older guard would've said "no we can't call a console Switch 2 because that's a Sony thing and Nintendo doesn't do that". Furukawa doesn't care about that, he grew up with a Playstation as well like most Japanese college age kids did circa 1996, it's nothing off limits to him, if something benefits Nintendo, they'll do it going forward, I think there's going to be far less stubborn backwardness on things due to "well Nintendo doesn't do that". That's the past, Furukawa doesn't care as much about that.