The PS4 dips to the teens in cutscenes and dips to the mid 20s in the same areas the Switch dips. You can see this in the link posted in one of my earlier replies, and you can compare it to the same scenes as the Switch framerate test.
Furthermore, most of the time the game runs at 30 fps on Switch. No need to hyperbole like there is a huge gap in performance, because the PS4 did not so it much better.
So unless you want to lable the PS4 version as unacceptable, you really have no stance to state that the Switch version is. At the end of the day, the trade off is visuals for portability, something that is subjective and valued differently from gamer to gamer.
I have no problem if you want to call PS4 version unacceptable. But if you think stating there is a huge perfomance gap is hyperbole that is on you as well.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."