Then why don't answer for yourself?

Yes or no ... if there was a PS4 Lite model that third parties supported that was 1/3 of the power of the PS4 (600 GFLOPS), would that not be a significant difference for the Switch? 

I think you probably prefer to dodge that one. 

Yes. History would have been different if it had been different.

Yes, because it's actually obvious. So now that there's really no dispute on that point (partly because when explained one looks like moron if they choose to die on that hill), it is fair to say that the Switch 2 probably will have significant advantages over what the Switch 1 has to deal with relative to PS4/XB1 ports ... several of which it has gotten anyway. 

Porting Witcher 3 to the current Switch most likely is going to be a far harder task than the Switch 2 being able to run Series S games. But of course that idea makes some people uncomfortable for whatever dumb reason. 

Thanks Microsoft for setting the floor of the next-generation much lower than the PS4/XB1 and PS3/360 gens, lol. Great for Nintendo. 

Nobody is uncomfortable with the idea.

People have problem with this kind of silly threads because they're based on rumored specs for the X-Box SS, and completely non-existent specs for what you call the Switch 2. And then you defend your stance to death as if it was all based on facts.

That's why I call this thread an exercise in wishful thinking.

We have reliable leaks for the Series S specs and we now have confirmation it exists. 

It's not wishful thinking to assume Switch 2 will be roughly equivalent to the PS5/XB2 what Switch 1 is to the PS4/XB1. 

That is a fair assumption. 

You assume that the PS5 games that will make use of RT will look like PS4 games because of how demanding RT is.

So I don't think you should thinking of yourself as making "fair assumptions".

With full ray tracing enabled? You bet your ass that would tank the performance of the PS5. 

The PS5 is not even a RDNA2 full fledged chip apparently, it's RDNA 1.5 which quite frankly is somewhat underwhelming. 

What I said was please go ahead and use ray tracing on PS5, lol. After rendering at 1800p-4K, you will see how much performance is left over. 

That's not going to be pretty. If you want to argue that, go ahead. 

Developers using ray tracing effects is exactly what you want if you're Nintendo. That will chew up a huge chunk of the PS5/XSX performance making a port to a Switch 2 with no ray tracing that much easier. It's a nice "effect" sure, but turning it off is not to going to alter one's enjoyment of a game that dramatically I don't think. 

We already know the XBox Series X (not S ... the big brother) when tasked to run the most basic looking modern popular game (Minecraft) ... if you turn ray tracing on and crank it (actual path tracing), the system can barely run Minecraft at 1080p. That's a 12 Teraflop GPU brought to its knees by Minecraft, lol. 

The Switch 2 vs Xbox Series S is probably gonna be one of the more interesting comparisons next generation and I am very much looking forward to seeing it. The problem right now is that it's hard to gauge on a lot of things without knowing the actual performance of Series S and RDNA 2 vs Ampere. If I were to guess, the next MX series GPUs for laptops that should come out next year from Nvidia should give us a good starting point for the Switch 2's GPU. If the rumours are true and Ampere gets 4x the ray tracing performance than Turing, then it wouldn't surprise me if Ampere MX gets 2060's ray tracing and tensor core performance.

The other questions would be target resolutions and price. Is the Switch 2 going to be $300 or will they bump that up? Is it still going to be 720p or 1080p?

The big unknown is going to be the CPU as Zen 2 is very strong and Nvidia's ARM cpus in the past have been meh. I am not too worried about SSD speeds as I am sure most third party games are going to be very scalable. All in all though, we should have a good idea about Ampere in about a month or so.

It seems like Nintendo are testing hardware already. Which isn't a surprise. RGT has two sources saying there were two hardware variants was tested internally - one late last year and one this February. They were testing the library for backwards compatibility with older hardware.

Interesting takeaway. Could be ready by next year at the earliest. Might be the Pro model or its successor. Nintendo originally intended Switch to launch with Pascal (probably Tegra X2) but did not make the cut and in doing so compromised on audio. Audio going to get bigger emphasis due to more advanced hardware/better capabilities. Also that this upcoming console will most likely have a more customized SoC.

Nintendo couldn't make an agreement with prices with Nvidia regarded Pascal pricing, so they went with Maxwell (X1). Prices not that much different, Nintendo went with the cheaper option (Maxwell) due to cost - profit.

The thing that makes me go "hmmm" about that is Nintendo did basically get Parker too ... Mariko is basically a Parker tier chip just without the Denver core CPU.

And Mariko is something that was leaked as being part of the Switch SDK since at least 2017, so that has been in the works for a while.