If I look at the the system as a handheld I like the performance bracket Nintendo aimed at. Nintendo does not seem interesting in sinking incredible amounts of money to develop modern AAA games. In that context PS360 level of performance is a sweet spot, modern hardware power is tapped more easily and extra RAM will do wonder.
Now for the hardware per self, I think it's going to be a plain Tegra X1, it is just nonsensical to go through the pain and money to design something else that would be that close. As for the pixel fill figure I guess it is simple matter of pixel/cycle instead of Gpixel/s /human mistake.
Honestly I dislike the whole thing. The performance level for the handheld is great but it is useless as home console, the improvements over the Wii U are to be marginal. The system is not ready for 4k, even for simple game for a system releasing in 2017 it is bad.
Nintendo is imho doing a mistake, the concept is pretty good: same games on TV and handheld, cartridge based. Now execution is awful they should have design two separate systems.
The Switch is going to be mostly as a mobile device but will have to deal with lots of overheads which are likely to affect negatively its price hence its reach in the market (it needs a cooler, it is complicated compared to handhelds like the 2DS, the PSP, the PS Vita and many android based console wannabee).
On the other hand view as a home console the deal is sour, especially for the fan that bought a Wii U.
As I see things Nintendo needed consistent CPU performance and a x4 ratio between the handheld performances and its home counter part.
I think Nintendo should have targeted qHD (540*960) for the handheld and 1080p for the home console. The home console could have stream games to the handheld with x4 supersampling, the main purpose would have been battery saving.
The home console would have muscle to push 1080p graphics for simpler games and using a clever upscaling trick to output in 4k. As for the quality think of playing PS360 games which are available on PC... on a low end gaming pc so with so extra bells and whistles on and an overall smoother experience.
As for the IP by self, I'm not super fond on Nintendo choices either. The CPU is a little dated and not the best matched for a low power device. I also think that Nintendo could have pushed the number of cores furthers (6 or 8).
For the GPUs, Nvidia does great things but they are also among the sharpest business persons around. Having them designing something custom at a sane price is a pretty awesome achievement but 2 SOCs...nah...
PowerVR does great mobile GPUs that also back a bunch but ultimately my belief is that Nintendo should have done with a pure ARM, hence dealing with a single partners (as they are doing with Nvidia) AND a partner that offer a complete range of up-to-date solutions on multiple process.
The last rendition of 28nm are great and widely available, ARM last IPs are available on such process: Nintendo should have produced two SOCs.