The nice advantage is that the Switch 2 will have good company in its performance-tier in ways the Switch didn't.
The Switch 2 should be roughly on par with iGPU's found in AMD/Intel APU's of this generation (890m, Meteor Lake XE), as well as Apple's Silicon of course. When Switch released iGPU driver support wasn't anywhere near what it is now, so the PC gaming market was mainly relegated to requiring a dGPU, which very much outclassed the Switch, even at the lowest end.
Then you have a Series S as a much closer base standard than even the initial Xbox One.
Support probably still won't be "all the top games" but the hardware justification is far less solid than it was in the past. Games that run at 1080p-1440p 30fps on the Series S shouldn't be too hard to run at 720p-900p on a Switch 2 with similar performance.
The question is less about "powerful enough" and "popular enough" and more on what the third party attach ratio will look like. If most people with a Switch 2 still buy their third party titles on other platforms then it might not matter how powerful or popular the Switch 2 is.
So many obstacles to porting games between platforms have been eliminated over the last 15 years. It's mainly a matter of getting a minimum sales forecast to exceed the marketing costs and costs of production more than the porting costs.
