Nintendo Switch is powered by NVIDIA

[Red Hawk]

If it's Maxwell then it will be a big disappointment from my point of view. It should be a Pascal based SoC without Denver cores. Tegra X1 with Pascal instead of Maxwell cores, manufactured on 16nm FF+ with faster DRAM than X1. Anything less than this will be a huge bummer.

If they had gone with the latest cutting-edge chip, that could have pushed the price up. I think a Maxwell powered Switch at $250 is a better proposition than one with Pascal at $300.

 

[tviceman]

If they had gone with the latest cutting-edge chip, that could have pushed the price up. I think a Maxwell powered Switch at $250 is a better proposition than one with Pascal at $300.

Costs go down over time, especially faster on the highest end of manufacturing nodes. Nintendo and Nvidia should have gone with Pascal on this one (assuming they did not). Apple's iPad Pro already beats Tegra X1 in graphics and the iphone 7 matches it.

The switch needs to be viable hardware for 4-5 years, and IMO shouldn't be starting with an old node chip with a previous generation architecture.

 

[jpiniero]

Actually 20 nm is so bad on pricing that the P1 is likely cheaper to manufacture. If it ends up being true then the TTM is probably the reason.

 

[RussianSensation]

If they had gone with the latest cutting-edge chip, that could have pushed the price up. I think a Maxwell powered Switch at $250 is a better proposition than one with Pascal at $300.

I have been very cautious and critical of Nintendo's approach. To this day, I view the Switch as a 3DS/New 3DS successor that just happens to have the ability to connect to a TV as a bonus feature. This is not the Nintendo home console many of us waited for 10+ years. A lot of people keep saying we need something different from PS4/XB1, but Nintendo has enough resources to have released the Switch and a traditional $300-400 home console to target both markets. Don't get me wrong, the Switch will sell better than the Wii U but if Nintendo is replacing 3DS/GameCube markets with 1 console, it should sell 50-75 million units over 5 years or it failed to properly replace 2 different style consoles with 1.

As I said earlier, going portable guarantees that for home console use the performance will be the worst out of all the major consoles due to power/TDP constraints. At the same time, trying to squeeze even more power into a portable eats into the battery life and compromises the device as a portable gaming platform that can last a day. The Switch is trying to replace both the 3DS and SNES/N64/GC/Wii markets in one go. This will never be possible with this generation. It's like trying to create a racing motorcycle that will also comfortably fit 2 people and their luggage.

I am more than certain that the rumoured $250 USD/$329 Canadian price will not include sufficient storage nor the Pro controller. The rumoured specs are worse than I expected 6 months ago:

> 256-512*** Maxwell CUDA cores < 1Ghz

*** I am making a huge leap of faith here that NV does a custom Tegra X1 chip because the standard one is a 256 CUDA core, 16 ROPs, 16 TMUs 1Ghz version that struggles to play modern games even at 1080p 30 fps on the Nvidia Shield Android TV.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegra#Tegra_X1

> 4GB of RAM (this is absolute killer when both PS4/XB1 have 8). Nintendo should have aimed to support 3rd party multi-platform titles this generation, but the issue is March 2017 launch ensures the Switch will overlap with next generation PS5/XB2 consoles too!

> 32GB base storage (yet another killer which means be prepared to add $40-60 for a 128GB SDXC (or even higher price if they limit it to MicroSDXC format)

> 25.6GB/sec memory bandwidth. Even if this had 50GB/sec, it would already be low for a 2017 $250-300 console
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=222261

Comparisons of the $250 Switch to $250 PS4/XB1 are missing how much more those 2 consoles have to offer by now. Those consoles have what 500-1000 games released for them? XB1 has 100s of XB360 compatible games too. Nintendo will have none of that for years. We are back to square one then -- the Switch is appealing as a 2nd console, to someone who wants only Nintendo exclusives or someone who wants a 3DS successor. Those are legitimate target markets but it seems Nintendo is completely giving up on having a well-rounded home console. A lot of gamers on this forum likely already own a gaming PC, XB1 and/PS4, but for someone coming in fresh into consoles (say younger gamers), the Switch will offer the least for the highest price.

This holiday season, PS4 Slim Uncharted 4 bundle already dropped to $210-230. Games like Until Dawn, Uncharted The Collection, SW:BF Deluxe, Borderlands The Handsome Collection, Last of Us Remastered, God of War Remastered, Infamous Second Son, Bloodborne, Killzone Shadow Fall, Ratchet & Clank dropped to $10-20. There are hundreds of used XB1/PS4 games to buy. Games like Uncharted 4: the Lost Legacy, Last of Us 2, Red Dead Redemption 2, GT Sport, Horizon Zero Dawn, etc. blow away anything Nintendo has outside of Zelda and Mario Kart. Every 3rd party cross-platform game will be better on the PS4/Scoprio/XB1/PC. The Switch isn't doing anything to address the core concerns consumers had with the Wii and Wii U. It's just tapping into guaranteed 3DS/New 3DS customer base.

Worst, my estimates that by the time the Switch launches, XB1+PS4 install base will be 70-75M may have been too low. It's looking like it might actually be 80-85M. That means Nintendo already lost this generation but they refuse to call the Switch 8th gen console. It certainly can't be the 9th gen since in no way shape of form will this compete with 2019-2020 PS5/XB2.

PS4 also has a lot of indie titles, and both Microsoft and Sony offer free games each month with online. XB play anywhere means the consumer gets both the console and PC version of the exclusive games. Hopefully Nintendo at least offers free online gaming as a standout feature.

Since the Switch will be new, all of its games will be expensive going against a plethora of heavily discounted 3.5-year gaming library of the other 2 competing consoles. The hardware will end up being the most expensive too due to the addition of the Pro controller and 128GB SD card. This console is by far looking the weakest in terms of hardware and family library and yet the barrier to entry into the eco-system will cost the most in 2017! [If you enter a mature market with a new product that costs more than the competition, you better have some killer features to be able to price it higher].

It seems the general hype is around Nintendo fans who refuse to see all things from a point of view of a console owner who just wants to own 1 well-rounded system. The minute I think of the Switch as a 2nd or 3rd console/gaming device, sure it becomes more appealing. We didn't even touch on XB1's 4K BluRay feature.

Imo, the Switch should really cost $159 for base and $199 with the Pro controller, and $249 for the Pro Controller and 128GB SDXC card bundle. But even then it's still not as good as the PS4/XB1 due to a tiny gaming library at launch. N64 had a small gaming library but the Nintendo and Rare games of that time wiped the floor with the exclusive games of the Wii and Wii U. When Goldeneye 007, Super Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, Banjo-Kazooie, Ocarina of Time, Perfect Dark, Majora's Mask, Conquer's Bad Fur Day were around, each of those games was easily the contender for GOTY in its own genre, and even GOTY overall. A lot of those games redefined their genres for the time. The leap from Genesis/SNES Nintendo games to N64 Nintendo games was the biggest ever. There were other gems along the way like Wave Race 64 or Residents Evil 2. Breath of the Wild doesn't have the same impact in 2017 as we have The Witcher 3 with expansion packs that costs $30.

The gaming landscape has evolved so much that even Nintendo's top games hardly win GOTY awards.

The problem with Nintendo consoles is their exclusives are no longer the gold standard or genre redefining games they used to be. They are good or even great games, but no longer define the console generation. As a result, a $250-300 portable console sounds way too expensive when comparing the exclusives Sony is pumping out. Good thing Nintendo continues to make a lot of $, which gives me hope that maybe we will see a traditional home console in 2019-2020 that sells alongside the Switch.

As far as hardware specs are concerned, it's looking very disappointing. What's more concerning is Nintendo going ARM and NV --> for Switch 2, there may not be much competition to choose from, which would force Nintendo into the same underpowered components for the next generation. What's concerning is if there is no traditional home console, and Nintendo sticks to fitting ARM and NV into a portable, the hope for a traditional Nintendo home console may be over for another 10 years. This means for NES/SNES/N64/GameCube owners who hated the Wii/Wii U, there is a strong chance they won't own a Nintendo console for another 10 (!) years after 2017. It's shocking to me that Nintendo simply stopped caring about these gamers when they made them who they are.

 

[R0H1T]

Well, pascal would be a lot more powerful at the same power consumption. For a mobile device it could make a very big difference. If it is maxwell based hopefully it'll at least have a more efficient CPU this time.

The Denver & A57 cores are not power efficient, if indeed the Switch has any one (or both) of them then it'll be a major power hog. Also 20nm TSMC is pretty bad, I suspect if it ends up on 20nm TSMC with Maxwell GPU & Denver/A57 cores then it'll strictly be restricted to gaming at home or else Nintendo will have to add a huge battery for it to last half a day.

 

[RussianSensation]

The Denver & A57 cores are not power efficient, if indeed the Switch has any one (or both) of them then it'll be a major power hog. Also 20nm TSMC is pretty bad, I suspect if it ends up on 20nm TSMC with Maxwell GPU & Denver/A57 cores then it'll strictly be restricted to gaming at home or else Nintendo will have to add a huge battery for it to last half a day.

This is engineering problem many touched upon - the goal of achieving the best battery life is the pollar opposite of a having powerful portable. The Switch's custom chip could be designed to clock higher as an APU when docked, as opposed to when it's not docked. This would mean that when undocked, the APU clocks lower to conserve power and extend the battery life. When docked the Nintendo Switch would power up by the direct feed and the unlocked clocks would give the single CPU and GPU chip scaled performance. In the portable mode the console would render at 720p 30 fps, and this could scale up to 1080p 30-60 fps in the docked/connected mode.

It would be cool to have a removable battery, but I presume the battery won't be that cheap.

-----

“I don’t see Nintendo’s strategy as a risk,” said Peddie. “Too many pundits and fan boys and investors make a serious mistake when they try to compare and contrast Nintendo with Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo has a niche in the affordable, accessible product, and performance is never a leading criteria for them. It is gameplay and immersion. They are never a technology pioneer. Trying to compare Nintendo to Sony is like comparing a Volkswagen to a Corvette. It’s a facetious and fallacious analogy and a discredit to fans who love Nintendo.”

This research analyst clearly wasn't around during NES/SNES/N64/GC eras. Nintendo always had close to or top-of-the-line console hardware every generation prior to the Wii/Wii U.

“If Nintendo gets traction with this, we forecast they will ship 5 million Switches by the end of 2017,” said Jon Peddie, analyst at market researcher Jon Peddie Research and a long-time graphics expert.

^ he claims Nintendo aims at the accessible/affordable market, and yet he only forecasts 5 million sold in 2017. PS4 will sell 4-5 million just from October 1-Dec 31, 2016. By end of next year, it should be easy to find PS4 Slim and XB1S for $199. All of a sudden the Switch + Pro controller + SDXC expansion combo will cost the most, making the console the least accessible in 2017.

 

[dark zero]

The Denver & A57 cores are not power efficient, if indeed the Switch has any one (or both) of them then it'll be a major power hog. Also 20nm TSMC is pretty bad, I suspect if it ends up on 20nm TSMC with Maxwell GPU & Denver/A57 cores then it'll strictly be restricted to gaming at home or else Nintendo will have to add a huge battery for it to last half a day.

Denver 2 is adressing that. And is better to replace those A57 Cores for A72 at least. They are cooler and better than the A57.

 

[dogen1]

The Denver & A57 cores are not power efficient, if indeed the Switch has any one (or both) of them then it'll be a major power hog. Also 20nm TSMC is pretty bad, I suspect if it ends up on 20nm TSMC with Maxwell GPU & Denver/A57 cores then it'll strictly be restricted to gaming at home or else Nintendo will have to add a huge battery for it to last half a day.

I doubt it'll use denver 1 or a57. It just wouldn't make any sense to go with anything that old when a72 devices have been out for a while now.

Also, a tegra maxwell based GPU at 16nm is probably not that different from pascal for the most part. In fact, it might even make more sense to start with a tegra maxwell, as it already has important features for mobile like double rate FP16 math.

 

[Sonikku]

I wish the Switch ran at different speeds when it was docked. Like, when it's plugged into the dock and pulling power from an outlet the gpu gets clocked higher and it plays games in 1080p on your tv instead of 480p on the mini screen.

 

[dogen1]

This research analyst clearly wasn't around during NES/SNES/N64/GC eras. Nintendo always had close to or top-of-the-line console hardware every generation prior to the Wii/Wii U.

Not really.. The N64 was really the only console that was clearly the most powerful on release.

I wish the Switch ran at different speeds when it was docked. Like, when it's plugged into the dock and pulling power from an outlet the gpu gets clocked higher and it plays games in 1080p on your tv instead of 480p on the mini screen.

I think the portable screen is around 720p, and no upclock is gonna increase performance enough for 6x the resolution.

 

[RussianSensation]

SNES was more powerful and had superior sound quality than the Genesis from what I recall. Certainly NES/SNES and GameCube were not the least powerful consoles of their respective generations. GameCube was more powerful than the PS2, but less so than the OG XB. The Wii/Wii U were outdated in day 1 of release. Looking at the rumoured specs for the Switch, they are excellent for a portable console and absolutely horrible for a 2017 $250-300 home console. The standard PS4 Slim already struggled to run many modern AAA games at 1080p 60 fps and based on the rumours, the Switch will barely come close to XB1.

Most developers will focus on optimizing their hardware optimizations for 80-85M of XB1/PS4 user base. We already see that it takes at least an i3 6100 and a GTX960 4GB to provide a similar level of IQ to the PS4 Slim. The Pro annihilates an i3 6100 and a 960. Games like Forza Horizon 3 have XB1 performing nearly as good as an i5 6400 and an R9 390/GTX970.

If the Switch has only 256 Maxwell cores, 16 TMUs and 25.6GB/sec memory bandwidth, it's pretty much dead in the water for 3rd parties. As MS and Sony are shifting to stop-gap refreshed 4K-upscale consoles with 4.2-6Tflops, the Switch will struggle to hit 1080p 30 fps, but it's supposed to last at least from 2017-2022.

What 3rd party developer is going to put that much optimization effort into the Switch as they will do for XB1/PS4 after comparing the user install base in 2017? Let's not kid ourselves.

The warning signs are everywhere already.

"Let's Play Video Games' Laura Dale, who has previously broken news on the Nintendo Switch's design as well as rumored launch titles, reported that developer From Software has already gotten a version of Dark Souls III running on the Switch with "a level of performance they are happy with."
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/dark-souls-iii-nintendo-switch-rumor/amp/

^ If the Switch was even as powerful as XB1, we would not be reading statements like "a level of performance they are happy with."

And another point many of us have been pointing out from 2013-2016 -- Nintendo's launch timing is all wrong. They are launching when the competing consoles are well on their way to reaching 100M+ consoles by the end of 2017. Even if Nintendo sells 5-10M units in 2017, that's a drop in the bucket for developers who'd rather spend their limited resources on 100M potential customers. As a developer/publisher, I have to reach 5% of the aggregate PS4/XB1 user base by holiday 2017 to sell 5M copies of a AAA game, but on the Switch, I'd have to get 50-100% of customers to purchase my game if by end of 2017 there are 5-10M Switch consoles sold.

From Software on Dark Souls 3:

"The game isn't a sure thing for the console at this point, as the studio apparently wants to make sure there is a large enough install base to warrant such a project,"
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/dark-souls-iii-nintendo-switch-rumor/amp/

Some of you forget why the Xbox 360 was so popular -- it dominated PS3 by having superior 3rd party multi-plays for at least 3-4 years after launch. It was only later in PS3's life-cycle when Sony got big exclusives, developers learned to better optimize PS3's hardware, and Sony had 2-3 price drop that allowed PS3 sales to have a come back.

The chance that most multi-plats will have the definitive console versions on the Switch is nil. As soon as 5-10 AAA multi-plats bomb on the Switch (and they will due to weak hardware and smaller user base), AAA developers will be less likely to invest into the Switch. The chance of games like Red Dead Redemption 2, the next Elder Scrolls or GTA VI showing up on the Switch is slim.

Once MS launches the Scorpio next year, Sony will likely drop the price on the Pro model to $349. Holiday 2017 will see $179-199 XB1S/PS4 Slim. XB1S/PS4 Slim already came extremely close to these prices this holiday season.

The Switch is rumoured to release at $329.99 Canadian (but without the Pro controller), but PS4 Slim already sells for that price with Uncharted 4 here in Canada.
http://www.walmart.ca/en/ip/unchart...3lewBmaLlca0JVynzym6kLKIjKGK90IalkaAmIM8P8HAQ

Breath of the Wild is the only huge title Nintendo has going for the Switch, but that isn't supposed to launch until later in 2017. Nintendo may have a Mario game at launch but other than that they need to show something to get people excited. Elder Scrolls 5 Skyrim, a basketball game isn't it.

Nintendo's marketing is still extremely weak. Almost no one I know had any clue about the Switch before I told them it was coming out. They need to start building up a huge marketing hype campaign as we are only 3 months or so away from launch.

The other time point is lack of consumer confidence in Nintendo. If I owned a Wii/Wii U and saw how Nintendo let those consoles wither and die, I wouldn't touch the Switch until I actually saw a real good game library. This creates a catch-22 for Nintendo since if consumers are cautious, they won't purchase the console early on, and this ensures 3rd party firms won't spend $ developing games for the Switch.

I hope to be wrong but Nintendo's biggest flaw is positioning the Switch as a home console replacement and a portable. They should have marketed it as a 3DS replacement that has a bonus feature which allows it to connect to a TV. The difference in how consumers will perceive the console is dramatically different. If I am comparing the Switch to home consoles, all of a sudden it's going head-to-head against Gears of War 4, Forza Horizon 3, God of War, Uncharted 4: Lost Legacy, etc. That's not a comparison Nintendo wants to be in. They need to be selling it as the best and only portable gaming console worth purchasing where Sony and MS don't exist.

 

[dogen1]

SNES was more powerful and had superior sound quality than the Genesis from what I recall. Certainly NES/SNES and GameCube were not the least powerful consoles of their respective generations. GameCube was more powerful than the PS2, but less so than the OG XB.

SNES had more advanced graphics and audio(though this was really too different to be called plain superior), but it's CPU was way slower than the Genesis. And the gamecube was mostly outclassed by the Xbox. Even the PS2 had advantages in areas.

 

[Face2Face]

DF confirms Tegra X1 and shows us docked and undocked clock speeds differences.

 

[railven]

It will really boil down to what games Nintendo brings to the party. My PS4/Xbox1 are huge dust magnets right now. Their 1st party line up has been decent, but too spread apart to keep them in the limelight in my household. PC covers 90% of the games I play, and with CO-OP functions on some, even covers what my consoles would have normally covered.

Other night for Thanksgiving, had the family playing Mario/Luigi Wii U. I never actually realized Luigi Mode was more of a sudden death mode with some quirks that had us all laughing at our stupid deaths and suicide runs.

Looking at the market, PS4/XB1 are facing some of their worst software sales in history. Hardware numbers might be up, but time to face it - PC is eating their lunch. I'm not saying PC is outselling console software, but when something like the famous Halo series doesn't even make a dent - woof.

Devs/Publishers are starting to feel the pinch of these AAA-budgets. Meanwhile Steam is getting littered by games a dime a dozen. The market is really weird lately. Haha.

Mario Go launches, makes millions on day 1, is slammed for not meeting expectations. What are these investors/analyst expecting?

 

[Sweepr]

Nintendo Switch CPU and GPU clock speeds revealed

Undocked
CPU: 1020MHz
GPU: 307.2MHz
Memory Controller: 1331/1600MHz

Docked
CPU: 1020MHz
GPU: 307.2/768MHz (two options)
Memory Cntroller: 1331/1600MHz

www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nintendo-switch-spec-analysis

 

[NTMBK]

300MHz? Wow.

 

[Bacon1]

300MHz? Wow.

Wow if that isn't a typo, that is very odd. Though it says it's over doubled that while docked... That is going to be very big hit for performance while on the go.

 

[dacostafilipe]

In the Shield, the CPU runs @ 2Ghz and the GPU @1Ghz ... kinda low :/

 

[Headfoot]

So it's definitely a 3DS successor that can dock, and not a Wii U successor that goes mobile. It's woefully inadequate vs the PS4 and XB1, not to mention Scorpio and PS4 Pro. But - considering that the 3DS still used ARM11 and a turd of a 65nm-era GPU this is light-years ahead of their last mobile offering. They care a lot about battery life so that's gotta be the bottom line here.

Even 300 Mhz 20nm version of Maxwell (Maxwell Plus? Pascal Lite?) will annihilate the PICA200 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PICA200 in the 3DS

The 3DS CPU was so slow, new iPhones have nearly as fast or faster processors literally just dedicated to watching fingerprint / motion sensors.

 

[dacostafilipe]

Good news!

Nintendo's Switch Game Console Is Vulkan & OpenGL Conformant : http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Nintendo-Switch-Vulkan-Conform

 

[crisium]

Ok, now I'm disappointed. Can't even keep up with the old Shield when docked?

I'll get one for the new Splatoon, but it's NICE to have better graphics. What's not nice is Nintendo politely declining better visual fidelity. Seriously, this is what it seems like. They could have possibly found a way to force Nvidia into Pascal. They could have at least achieved parity with the Shield. But they said no thanks? Who declines self-improvement? A company I will not admire.

Caring about battery life would have meant they should have demanded Pascal, and shifted production and design in Mid 2016 to accomodate. Or earlier.

How did Microsoft get ATi to release more advanced GPU tech then what was on the market in the 360? It takes a certain drive.

How did Sony get Polaris 10 with extra features in PS4 Pro only less than half a year after Polaris 10 hit the markets? They demanded the best from AMD. Even lagging behind this time table by several months, Nintendo could achieve Pascal.

And they also could have envisioned a docking cooling system for higher clocks. Nintendo isn't interested in being the best it can be. They exercised the cheapest option it seems, in which they didn't pay Nvidia to develop something more modern or their own engineers to enable truly better performance in docked mode. Not inspiring at all in any way (I still look forward to fun Software FWIW).

 

[Headfoot]

Ok, now I'm disappointed. Can't even keep up with the old Shield when docked?

I'll get one for the new Splatoon, but it's NICE to have better graphics. What's not nice is Nintendo politely declining better visual fidelity. Seriously, this is what it seems like. They could have possibly found a way to force Nvidia into Pascal. They could have at least achieved parity with the Shield. But they said no thanks? Who declines self-improvement? A company I will not admire.

Caring about battery life would have meant they should have demanded Pascal, and shifted production and design in Mid 2016 to accomodate. Or earlier.

How did Microsoft get ATi to release more advanced GPU tech then what was on the market in the 360? It takes a certain drive.

How did Sony get Polaris 10 with extra features in PS4 Pro only less than half a year after Polaris 10 hit the markets? They demanded the best from AMD. Even lagging behind this time table by several months, Nintendo could achieve Pascal.

And they also could have envisioned a docking cooling system for higher clocks. Nintendo isn't interested in being the best it can be. They exercised the cheapest option it seems, in which they didn't pay Nvidia to develop something more modern or their own engineers to enable truly better performance in docked mode. Not inspiring at all in any way (I still look forward to fun Software FWIW).

Totally agreed. They could and should have done better. I get aiming for low power / long battery life, but that leads to the conclusion you definitely want to avoid Maxwell 20nm and go with Pascal 16nm, if only for the fact that 20nm was junk. Especially since they're getting Vulkan to run on it, and we can see fairly dramatic measurable improvements in the new APIs on Pascal vs Maxwell.

All around I can't see myself buying one of these really ever.

 

[SPBHM]

well, expecting high specs from Nintendo is going to leave you disappointed I guess, their last console comparable to the competition was out in 2002, their portables were always also not very impressive and lower than the competition (thinking of the Sega and later Sony portables),
looking at these clocks and being a regular tegra X1, I think as a portable as I thought it's good, better than you could expect from Nintendo, but as a console, it's really bad, probably worse than the Wii U looked in 2012.... people were expecting PS4 level, that's not even Xbox One level.

 

[tviceman]

The only way I see the use of Maxwell as being okay is if Nvidia took TX1, shrunk it to 16nm ff+, and we're able to up the clocks and lower power consumption. Even then it's still disappointing given Pascal will have been out for 10 months when Switch is released.

Given that JHH said something along the lines that the kind of partnership Nvidia made with Nintendo typically lasts decades, I can see Nintendo treating the Switch like Sony and MS are treating current consoles, i.e. releasing a better switch in a few years while retaining cross compatibility.

 

[RussianSensation]

SNES had more advanced graphics and audio(though this was really too different to be called plain superior), but it's CPU was way slower than the Genesis. And the gamecube was mostly outclassed by the Xbox. Even the PS2 had advantages in areas.

Looks like my entire post went completely over your head; and you ignored all the major points. The best looking SNES and GameCube games looked as good or better than Genesis and PS2 games. Neither the SNES nor the GameCube launched 3.5 years after their competitors at prices that barely matched the competitors. In Nintendo's case, add $30-50 for the Pro controller and $30-50 for an SD card. The barrier to entry will be higher than XB1S and PS4 Slim, exacerbated by a small gaming library. 50% of XB1 players have used backwards campatibilty and XB1 offers 4K BluRay playback. The 1st party games Sony has launching in 2017-2018, along with their current exclusives appeal to a mucc wider audience than a Zelda game. Gamers who haven't owned a console in years (or who are 1st time console buyers) want to see the variety of games before spending $250-300. This is why launching at the right time is critical in forming a large game library.

256CC @ 307mhz => 0.157Tflops
256CX @ 768mhz => 0.393Tflops

Memory bandwidth => 21.3-25.6GB/sec.

Pixel and texture fill-rates hint at only 16 ROPs and 16 TMUs. With these specs, the console will struggle to output sharp textures and AA.

Most games will probably run in 540-720p 30fps in undocked mode. I think Nintendo wants the Switch to be considered a home console so that they can charge $50-60 US for games vs. a portable console where games cost $30-40.

Once MS and Sony have next wave of exclusive titles, the Switch will look like a 2012 console next to its 2017 competitors but yet priced barely lower all-in. The worst part is Nintendo aligned with ARM+NV which means Switch 2 is going to be more of the same. Unless Nintendo does something dramatic soon, they are going to be completely irrelevant as a home console alternative.