I'm sure it is but what's the point if you end up with vastly underpowered hardware? PC is either performance focused so those devs won't care about Switch or indies but why would indies bother with this? If the X1 inside Switch really gets gimped that much, will it even be able to compete with Intel IGP's?
Vastly underpowered compared to what? Snapdragon 820? Because I don't think that was ever realistically in the running. Knowing Nintendo they probably froze the SoC choice in 2015, hence why we appear to be looking at something based on Tegra X1 and not a newer 16nm+/FinFet SoC from nVidia. Nintendo tends to be more conservative about this than they need to be, but all things considered there's really only so aggressive any gaming hardware maker can be while still delivering a decent launch lineup with properly optimized titles.
The realistic comparison would more likely be with something like Snapdragon 810, and no, I don't think that would be a clear winner hardware-wise. Not when you're stuck with the same baseline which is the ability to run all of the CPU cores at the same speed all the time without any regard to potential burst performance. You'd likely end up with something pretty similar CPU-wise with somewhat worse perf/W, lower peak GPU power and much worse perf/W, and none of nVidia's software or institutional benefits.
You guys are looking at these CPU clocks and are thinking wow, they could have had something so much faster with X, Y, or Z. But you have to consider that this isn't about the fastest they could have pushed CPU performance but about a tradeoff that has been made with just about every gaming platform (and especially handheld) that has existed: less CPU power in favor for more graphics power.
Look at XB1 and PS4 - did they clock the Jaguar cores as high as they could have? Based on other products probably not, but they backed them down in favor of freeing up die area and TDP for the GPU, while letting a large core count run at peak clocks consistently and reliably. Look at PSVita and 3DS and you'll see even starker examples where they're using stock CPU cores that are clocked far below what other mobile devices clocked them at. This is all for a good reason and it's not just because they could have and should have chosen Qualcomm instead.
Now ~300MHz (in handhehld mode) for the Maxwell GPU in Tegra X1 might not sound like an awful lot. And it isn't really, but given its form factor, probably a less than substantial battery capacity and a desire to actually be able to play games reliably for at least a few hours it's actually pretty aggressive. And given the CPU/GPU balance we see on other gaming platforms 1GHz CPU is pretty reasonable alongside it.
Is there any better place to get ballpark performance figures for mobile devices?
For CPU Geekbench 4 is one of the best options currently available. And even there I'd advise to look at ST int, MT int, ST FP, MT FP, memory and total scores separately and put some consideration into the particular implications of each for the platforms at hand.
There's a lot of 3D GPU benches that are at least not totally useless, like GFXBench and 3DMark.
AnTuTu's individual tests are mostly all awful, but more than that the total number aggregates a lot of things that are going to involve system performance details that may not be that relevant to gaming handheld performance (like SD write speed)
