The definition of a "current gen game" has nothing to do with how visually impressive it is. It has to do with which platforms it was released on. 

x86 isn't the same x86 from 30 years ago. It most certainly can go low-power and compete with ARM.
Intel actually had a ton of success with Medfield to that end... And AMD was getting there with Brazos.

Well. Digital Foundry was technically incorrect when they said AMD doesn't really have the core technology to build a low powered design.
So quick are people to forget that Adreno was born from AMD's efforts and sold to Qualcomm and AMD still holds a ton of patents to that end. (Re-arrange the letters of Adreno and you get Radeon.)

Well. The difference between the Playstation 4 and Playstation 3 is... The Playstation 4 has newer CPU/GPU designs which are lower powered and on the market.
You never had an ultra low powered mobile iteration of Cell.

You do not need to replace the chips with identical versions either, it is perfectly okay to use completely different chips... Just as long as they are backwards compatible from an ISA and performance standpoint.

Indeed. I think that was a pretty ignorant statement on their behalf.
Raven Ridge has show how capable it really is.

"7nm" will be a big improvement to that end as well.

I was right in what I said regardless of how you try to spin it because you knew what I meant as well as anyone. This is a gaming forum. It's not a courtroom. Why are you bothering me with this? You didn't like what I wrote so you're willing to derail the thread by getting into a silly debate of semantics to say that the statement was false when the meat or spirit of it is right which you knew. The ns can't play the vast majority of the games on the PS4 just like they are. You happy? Are you gonna reeeee! into a pillow and think of some other crap to complain about? 

You're the one who got all emotional here, so who's the one reeing? I corrected you on a false statement. You got irritated by my correction. 

Honestly I didn't care about your original post either way, it was mostly your opinion. What I did care about was the outright wrong statement, that the Switch is incapable of playing current generation games. 

Did you read the article?

Doom 2016's Switch port - and indeed the upcoming Wolfenstein 2 conversion - have taken a lot of grief from users unhappy with resolution reductions, frame-rate hits and obvious downgrades in the visual feature set.

So, from what I gathered, the higher wattage (power draw), mixed with the battery required for that and form factor that would likely stem from a result of it, makes shrinking the existing architecture unlikely for a while. Changing the architecture would make it possible sooner, but it would no longer really be a PS4 as games wouldn't natively function on it without some reworking.

Honestly, Sony is better either trying something new or capitalizing on what they've done so well this past gen over following what Nintendo is doing. I'm far more likely to buy two unique products than two that are basically the same thing anyway.

I have read the article. The article points out the to the game having issues regarding lower resolution and unstable frame rates in demanding areas and it details a patch that somewhat improves performance. However, the reactions to the article for the most part and the article itself do not indicate that users are unhappy with the game; most seem to be pleased that there is a portable playable version of the game. In addition, it does not change the fact that this is a current generation game available on a current generation system.

I think many of the disparaging voices against Switch forget that this is a device that has to take portability into account, and we are never going to get a portable system that is going to be as powerful as its stationary counterparts (and this not only applies to video game systems, but pretty much all other computing devices). Nevertheless, portability is a convenience for many and even necessary for some. This is not too different to home consoles in relation to PCs and Arcades. There are plenty of games on current gen stationary systems that have performance issues compared to mid-range or high-end PCs, and yet there is a substantial market for stationary consoles (not to mention the base stationary systems remain the top selling options compared to the more expensive mid-generation upgrades). Moreover, there was a point when gamers left the arcades and opted for stationary home systems despite the arcades offering much better performance and graphical fidelity in many games. In both cases a market for stationary home consoles proved to be viable, even though they were far from the best option for those seeking graphics and performance, because of convenience. This is not too different from why people like gaming on portable devices like Switch and why these people wouldn't mind having a portable PS4 (even if, much like stationary systems compared to things like arcades and PCs, there are some trade offs in terms of visual fidelity and performance).

The fact is Nintendo's policies since the Wii of no longer competing with Sony and MS on horsepower meant that they could not only utilise their large portable games library , something their competitors don't have by unifying it with their home library all while boosting performance.
Sony doesn't have this dual library incentive to push to consumers ,nor is it coming off a low power base in regard to portability ,also one of Nintendo's incentives for going with the switch was to help them offset the decline in traditional portable gaming.

I don't think Sony needs to be seen as being THAT unoriginal. It would look really bad on them. Let Nintendo do their thing. Sony is doing just fine with their own business model.

That doesn't make sense. Switch is selling just as well or slightly better as PS4 with launches aligned. PS4 gained momentum. Consoles never have their best years at launch. This is a bad comment.