By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nvidia employee acknowledges Tegra 239 SoC rumored to be powering Switch 2

Soundwave said:
Norion said:

4-5 months is enough time yeah but something critical you're ignoring with your examples is them being talked about in advance. Both the Switch and PS5 were first talked about well in advance before the full on reveal a few months before launch and the OLED is a hardware revision which are treated differently. Nintendo has said nothing about a Switch successor yet which means if they follow historical precedence that it's not launching soon. Now of course they may not follow that but I don't think it's something one should outright expect especially since when the successor is just a few months away rumours about it will be everywhere.

They were talked about, sure, just like we're talking about Switch 2/Super Switch whatever right now and getting leaks on the processor apparently. 

I don't think these kinds of leaks represent the same kind of exposure that Norion and Rol have mentioned though.  We knew that Nintendo's new system was in the works with a codename and all in early 2015.  Nintendo has specifically said that it is in no hurry to replace Switch with a successor.

Sales evidence supports this too; does it really make sense for Nintendo to come out with Switch's successor - even as a transition system - as early as next year when so many people are just buying their Switch systems for the first time?  That's to say nothing of a chip shortage possibility.  If we do get new hardware next year, it is likely that it will just be a more capable Switch that is clearly in the specs realm of a pro model as opposed to Switch 2.  Launching with ZTotK, I could see that maybe happening to extend the Switch's life even further until a late 2025 Switch 2 release.

What you propose as a transition into Switch 2 is a possibility, as this translation from Nintendo even supports the possibility of that idea:

"The question of whether we will be able to just as smoothly transition from the Nintendo Switch to the next generation of hardware is a major concern for us. Based on our experiences with the Wii, Nintendo DS, and other hardware, it is very clear that one of the major obstacles is how to easily transition from one hardware to the next. To help alleviate this risk, we’re focusing on building long-term relationships with our customers. While we will continue launching new software on the Nintendo Switch, we will also provide services that also use Nintendo Accounts and other IP outside of gaming software. We intend for this to help build a lasting impact with our customers."

While I could see something like this happening where you basically have a cross-gen situation for the first year and a half or so of Switch 2's life, it just doesn't make sense to do that in 2023 coming off of a 20m+ fiscal year.  I'd still say 2024 for this scenario at the earliest.



Around the Network
archbrix said:
Soundwave said:

They were talked about, sure, just like we're talking about Switch 2/Super Switch whatever right now and getting leaks on the processor apparently. 

I don't think these kinds of leaks represent the same kind of exposure that Norion and Rol have mentioned though.  We knew that Nintendo's new system was in the works with a codename and all in early 2015.  Nintendo has specifically said that it is in no hurry to replace Switch with a successor.

Sales evidence supports this too; does it really make sense for Nintendo to come out with Switch's successor - even as a transition system - as early as next year when so many people are just buying their Switch systems for the first time?  That's to say nothing of a chip shortage possibility.  If we do get new hardware next year, it is likely that it will just be a more capable Switch that is clearly in the specs realm of a pro model as opposed to Switch 2.  Launching with ZTotK, I could see that maybe happening to extend the Switch's life even further until a late 2025 Switch 2 release.

What you propose as a transition into Switch 2 is a possibility, as this translation from Nintendo even supports the possibility of that idea:

"The question of whether we will be able to just as smoothly transition from the Nintendo Switch to the next generation of hardware is a major concern for us. Based on our experiences with the Wii, Nintendo DS, and other hardware, it is very clear that one of the major obstacles is how to easily transition from one hardware to the next. To help alleviate this risk, we’re focusing on building long-term relationships with our customers. While we will continue launching new software on the Nintendo Switch, we will also provide services that also use Nintendo Accounts and other IP outside of gaming software. We intend for this to help build a lasting impact with our customers."

While I could see something like this happening where you basically have a cross-gen situation for the first year and a half or so of Switch 2's life, it just doesn't make sense to do that in 2023 coming off of a 20m+ fiscal year.  I'd still say 2024 for this scenario at the earliest.

Either way I don't think you're going to get a Switch 2 announcement like a 1 year in advance no matter what the release date is.

Lets say your scenario is correct and 2024 is the release date, they're not going to announce in 2023 a Switch 2 is coming 12 months ahead of launch because why would you slow Switch sales for holiday 2023 in particular for no real good reason? 

The NX was not revealed in 2015 to get hardcore internet gamers excited, they had to reveal something at that time because they were making the announcement of going into smartphone games and had to reassure stockholders that they weren't abandoning traditional hardware. NX was actually a secondary announcement at that event ... the press conference where NX was announced was first and foremost to announce their entry into smartphone gaming. 

Hardware transitions are just different now too. Software takes too long to make and is too expensive to look past 100+ million users, even for Sony, they can't ignore the PS4's userbase and here we are in 2022, the PS5 is almost 2 years old and all major PS5 titles, even Sony's own in house games like their big ticket holiday 2022 title, God of War Ragnarok is PS4/PS5. From the GTAVI leak it looks like GTAVI might even be a PS4 game, lol. 

The days of one new hardware coming to market and completely cutting off the previous gen to start from 0 I think is over. It doesn't make any financial sense to do that anymore unless your previous console was a flop. The industry has changed. 

But I do think something may be imminent, the types of hardware leaks we're getting here where we basically may know everything about the Switch 2 hardware chipset is usually something that only happens maybe 7-8 months prior to a product launch (NX/Switch was the same, 7 months prior to launch we got the Eurogamer leak that stated the hybrid concept and a few weeks later the Tegra X1 was stated to be in the dev kits). To know a system's hardware like 2-3 years before launch ... is really unprecedented. 

Last edited by Soundwave - 1 day ago

Soundwave said:
Norion said:

4-5 months is enough time yeah but something critical you're ignoring with your examples is them being talked about in advance. Both the Switch and PS5 were first talked about well in advance before the full on reveal a few months before launch and the OLED is a hardware revision which are treated differently. Nintendo has said nothing about a Switch successor yet which means if they follow historical precedence that it's not launching soon. Now of course they may not follow that but I don't think it's something one should outright expect especially since when the successor is just a few months away rumours about it will be everywhere.

They were talked about, sure, just like we're talking about Switch 2/Super Switch whatever right now and getting leaks on the processor apparently. 

There was virtually no concrete information given by Nintendo on the NX other than it was a dedicated game system and they only even said that much to assure stockholders that they weren't abandoning game hardware at a press event where they first announced they would be making smartphone games. After that there was pretty much no actual information about the system from Nintendo, certainly nothing to build hype or excitement. 

So Switch was basically 4 1/2 months from knowing basically nothing confirmed about the system (other than some leaks not provided by Nintendo, but you can say the same thing about Super Switch/Switch 2 right now) to being available to play in your home. 

I mean do you logically think even think they would say "hey yeah Switch 2 is coming" right now anyway? That would be monumentally stupid, why would you hurt your own Switch holiday sales for no reason? Even if it's a 2024 or 2025 product it wouldn't make a lot of sense to undercut existing Switch sales for no reason especially when Nintendo has no second hardware line anymore. 

This is why 1+ year hardware announcements I think are pretty much dwindling (unless your present hardware is selling below expectation), it's a stupid thing to do basically. To be honest from leaks we may know more about Switch 2 at this point than was known about the OG Switch at this point ... if the Tegra 239 is indeed the processor, then we know pretty much the performance of the Switch 2 roughly already, we have the number of CUDA cores, CPU cores, and number of SM units and even hardware features like DLSS and raytracing. 

Eurogamer leaked the hybrid NX concept 7 months prior to launch but no specifics on the actual chipset being used. We're currently 8 months out from May 2023, if they are going for that date (again I'm not saying for sure they are, but just if that is a hypothetical window), we probably know more about Switch 2 right now than we did about Switch 1. I think the NX using a Tegra X1 leaked a bit afterwards, so we know about the same roughly about both systems. 

That's not the same thing as the company itself talking about it. Nintendo has said nothing about the Switch's successor yet when they outright gave the Switch's release month nearly a full year in advance and announced the 3DS almost a full year in advance so based on historical precedence the successor can't release that soon without an announcement unless they do things differently this time. They may choose to do so but I see it as unlikely until they break away from it for the first time. And hardware announcements well in advance aren't really dwindling for consoles since both the PS5 and Xbox Series were announced in 2019. Maybe doing it differently would work better but it is something that's being followed in that space still.



Norion said:
Soundwave said:

They were talked about, sure, just like we're talking about Switch 2/Super Switch whatever right now and getting leaks on the processor apparently. 

There was virtually no concrete information given by Nintendo on the NX other than it was a dedicated game system and they only even said that much to assure stockholders that they weren't abandoning game hardware at a press event where they first announced they would be making smartphone games. After that there was pretty much no actual information about the system from Nintendo, certainly nothing to build hype or excitement. 

So Switch was basically 4 1/2 months from knowing basically nothing confirmed about the system (other than some leaks not provided by Nintendo, but you can say the same thing about Super Switch/Switch 2 right now) to being available to play in your home. 

I mean do you logically think even think they would say "hey yeah Switch 2 is coming" right now anyway? That would be monumentally stupid, why would you hurt your own Switch holiday sales for no reason? Even if it's a 2024 or 2025 product it wouldn't make a lot of sense to undercut existing Switch sales for no reason especially when Nintendo has no second hardware line anymore. 

This is why 1+ year hardware announcements I think are pretty much dwindling (unless your present hardware is selling below expectation), it's a stupid thing to do basically. To be honest from leaks we may know more about Switch 2 at this point than was known about the OG Switch at this point ... if the Tegra 239 is indeed the processor, then we know pretty much the performance of the Switch 2 roughly already, we have the number of CUDA cores, CPU cores, and number of SM units and even hardware features like DLSS and raytracing. 

Eurogamer leaked the hybrid NX concept 7 months prior to launch but no specifics on the actual chipset being used. We're currently 8 months out from May 2023, if they are going for that date (again I'm not saying for sure they are, but just if that is a hypothetical window), we probably know more about Switch 2 right now than we did about Switch 1. I think the NX using a Tegra X1 leaked a bit afterwards, so we know about the same roughly about both systems. 

That's not the same thing as the company itself talking about it. Nintendo has said nothing about the Switch's successor yet when they outright gave the Switch's release month nearly a full year in advance and announced the 3DS almost a full year in advance so based on historical precedence the successor can't release that soon without an announcement unless they do things differently this time. They may choose to do so but I see it as unlikely until they break away from it for the first time. And hardware announcements well in advance aren't really dwindling for consoles since both the PS5 and Xbox Series were announced in 2019. Maybe doing it differently would work better but it is something that's being followed in that space still.

Historical precedent isn't some gospel law, it changes every generation in numerous ways. 

You're two years into the PS5 product cycle and it has no meaningful exclusives. Same with XBox Series S/X. What's the historical precedent for that? There is none. 

Historical precedent says Nintendo always makes a separate home console and portable ... until they didn't (and this point was hotly debated for a long time here with lots of people being in denial over a hybrid system not being possible because Nintendo had never done it before). 

Historical precedent says the N64, GameCube, Wii, Wii U and other systems all have gameplay demos and games announced 8-12 months in advance of launch. The Switch did not. We didn't know anything about any games and we didn't get any game demos until 4 1/2 months prior to launch. 

The window from product reveal to launch is shrinking for all these systems, it used to be much larger. Shit I remember the fucking N64 (Project: Reality) being "announced" in August 1993 ... the SNES was only 2 years old in the US at that time, lol. Imagine Nintendo announcing Switch 2 in 2019. 

Things change all the time, there is no generation where Nintendo has exactly followed the historical precedent from the previous one, every system is different. 

Even if Switch 2 is a 2024 or 2025 product, I don't think you're getting an announcement 12+ months in advance ... it serves Nintendo of today no purpose and would only damage hardware sales for no good reason. 



Soundwave said:
Norion said:

That's not the same thing as the company itself talking about it. Nintendo has said nothing about the Switch's successor yet when they outright gave the Switch's release month nearly a full year in advance and announced the 3DS almost a full year in advance so based on historical precedence the successor can't release that soon without an announcement unless they do things differently this time. They may choose to do so but I see it as unlikely until they break away from it for the first time. And hardware announcements well in advance aren't really dwindling for consoles since both the PS5 and Xbox Series were announced in 2019. Maybe doing it differently would work better but it is something that's being followed in that space still.

Historical precedent isn't some gospel law, it changes every generation in numerous ways. 

You're two years into the PS5 product cycle and it has no meaningful exclusives. Same with XBox Series S/X. What's the historical precedent for that? There is none. 

Historical precedent says Nintendo always makes a separate home console and portable ... until they didn't (and this point was hotly debated for a long time here with lots of people being in denial over a hybrid system not being possible because Nintendo had never done it before). 

Historical precedent says the N64, GameCube, Wii, Wii U and other systems all have gameplay demos and games announced 8-12 months in advance of launch. The Switch did not. We didn't know anything about any games and we didn't get any game demos until 4 1/2 months prior to launch. 

The window from product reveal to launch is shrinking for all these systems, it used to be much larger. Shit I remember the fucking N64 (Project: Reality) being "announced" in August 1993 ... the SNES was only 2 years old in the US at that time, lol. Imagine Nintendo announcing Switch 2 in 2019. 

Things change all the time, there is no generation where Nintendo has exactly followed the historical precedent from the previous one, every system is different. 

Even if Switch 2 is a 2024 or 2025 product, I don't think you're getting an announcement 12+ months in advance ... it serves Nintendo of today no purpose and would only damage hardware sales for no good reason. 

Of course it's not gospel, I've said multiple times they may choose to do things differently including in the message you replied to so I don't know why you're replying in a way like I'm saying there's no chance things will be different next time. It is possible the Switch's successor is announced only 4-5 months before launch but it's never been even close to that short before so assuming a 2024 launch I think it's more likely to get an announcement in 2023 than 2024 since I see nothing that indicates they're gonna make a significant change.



Around the Network
Doctor_MG said:
Leynos said:

Switch is well above a 360 and no Orin has less bandwidth than XBO overall. You are not taking into account XBO Esram which put XBO's total bandwidth at 109GB. The Jetson Orin is 102. XBO is a ballpark range for a mobile chip that Nintendo will go with. Of course it will have new features but overall powe range is XBO.

The ESRAM in the Xbox One is 32MB. You can't take the ESRAM bandwidth and add it to the total RAM bandwidth and call it a day. That's literally like saying the 360's RAM bandwidth was over 250GB/s (it wasn't). While ESRAM can help with bandwidth limitations, it's more often used for framebuffers. 

If they were using it purely for the framebuffer, 16MB of ESRAM would have sufficed for drawing a 1080p image.

Rather, they used it for render targets because at this point deferred renderers were finally gaining traction.

eSRAM has gotten a second life anyway... Case in point RDNA2 with it's Infinity Cache... The 6600XT for instance has just 32MB, just like the Xbox One.
SRAM caches definitely have a place... As AMD has showcased with Infinity Cache. (Essentially a chunky L3 for the GPU.)

sc94597 said:
Leynos said:

More likely rendered at 540P and upscaled to 1080P. Chip is roughly a base Xbox One.

Where are you getting this from? 

It seems highly unlikely that the Switch 2 is going to release with a chipset that is "roughly a base Xbox One." GCN 1.0 is pretty ancient compared to Ampere (about eight years older), this Switch 2 likely will have far faster memory (LPDDR5 > DDR3, and no the 32 MB of eSRAM doesn't totally make up for it), and of course a much better CPU than the Jaguar in the XBO. 

Even if we looked at theoretical performance of the rumored, hypothetical Switch Orin Chip, it is estimated to compute 1.9 FP32 TFLOPS, whereas the XBO only was estimated to compute 1.3 FP32 TFLOPS. And again, with the much better CPU, newer architecture, and better ram bandwidth this theoretical performance likely will be better realized in actual games. 

The Switch 2 likely won't be able to play at 4k, but 1080p (or close) and with DLSS 60fps (or higher) definitely is doable. 540p -> 1080p seems to only be a scenario that will happen for the seemingly inevitable Series S to Switch 2 ports, akin to what the Steam Deck does, but likely better if these specs are true or to improve battery life by running games at lower power settings. 

The issue with the Xbox One is that the eSRAM came at the expense of GPU resources, cutting back the Render Output Pipelines, Shader Pipelines, Texture Mapping Units for a high-speed cache... The result was a game of sacrifices rather than leveraging eSRAM to increase efficiency. - Which it can.

If Microsoft hypothetically had an identical GPU/Ram setup to the Playstation 4 and retained that 32MB of cache, there would have been no doubt the Xbox One would have had a graphics edge by a significant margin.

Alistair said:

Most games have backwards compatibility because it takes 5+ years to make many games now. Rockstar made 5+ games for the PS3 but only ONE game for the PS4.

The PS5 is not at all similar to a PS4 Pro Pro. It has a MASSIVE increase in CPU power allowing for game engines that won't even boot up on the PS4. It has 100x faster storage than the PS4, again, allowing new engines that can't even load up on the PS4.

And GPU wise, yeah it is only twice as fast, but it is RDNA2 and has many features that the PS4 can't use. Not just ray tracing, but DirectX 12 level features. The GPU is the smallest improvement, mainly allowing double the frame rate of old PS4 Pro games until those features are put to use.

Playstation 4 has Ray Traced games.

The Playstation 4 however lacks hardware accelerated Ray Tracing.

Remember, Ray Tracing is essentially an algorithm, so games that use any form of bounce lighting (I.E. Global Illumination) is thus Ray Traced.

Soundwave said:

Historical precedent says Nintendo always makes a separate home console and portable ... until they didn't (and this point was hotly debated for a long time here with lots of people being in denial over a hybrid system not being possible because Nintendo had never done it before).

WiiU was a hybrid system. You can game independently of a TV.
It was a fixed home console with mobile (albeit limited) characteristics.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
Doctor_MG said:

The ESRAM in the Xbox One is 32MB. You can't take the ESRAM bandwidth and add it to the total RAM bandwidth and call it a day. That's literally like saying the 360's RAM bandwidth was over 250GB/s (it wasn't). While ESRAM can help with bandwidth limitations, it's more often used for framebuffers. 

If they were using it purely for the framebuffer, 16MB of ESRAM would have sufficed for drawing a 1080p image.

Rather, they used it for render targets because at this point deferred renderers were finally gaining traction.

eSRAM has gotten a second life anyway... Case in point RDNA2 with it's Infinity Cache... The 6600XT for instance has just 32MB, just like the Xbox One.
SRAM caches definitely have a place... As AMD has showcased with Infinity Cache. (Essentially a chunky L3 for the GPU.)

sc94597 said:

Where are you getting this from? 

It seems highly unlikely that the Switch 2 is going to release with a chipset that is "roughly a base Xbox One." GCN 1.0 is pretty ancient compared to Ampere (about eight years older), this Switch 2 likely will have far faster memory (LPDDR5 > DDR3, and no the 32 MB of eSRAM doesn't totally make up for it), and of course a much better CPU than the Jaguar in the XBO. 

Even if we looked at theoretical performance of the rumored, hypothetical Switch Orin Chip, it is estimated to compute 1.9 FP32 TFLOPS, whereas the XBO only was estimated to compute 1.3 FP32 TFLOPS. And again, with the much better CPU, newer architecture, and better ram bandwidth this theoretical performance likely will be better realized in actual games. 

The Switch 2 likely won't be able to play at 4k, but 1080p (or close) and with DLSS 60fps (or higher) definitely is doable. 540p -> 1080p seems to only be a scenario that will happen for the seemingly inevitable Series S to Switch 2 ports, akin to what the Steam Deck does, but likely better if these specs are true or to improve battery life by running games at lower power settings. 

The issue with the Xbox One is that the eSRAM came at the expense of GPU resources, cutting back the Render Output Pipelines, Shader Pipelines, Texture Mapping Units for a high-speed cache... The result was a game of sacrifices rather than leveraging eSRAM to increase efficiency. - Which it can.

If Microsoft hypothetically had an identical GPU/Ram setup to the Playstation 4 and retained that 32MB of cache, there would have been no doubt the Xbox One would have had a graphics edge by a significant margin.

Alistair said:

Most games have backwards compatibility because it takes 5+ years to make many games now. Rockstar made 5+ games for the PS3 but only ONE game for the PS4.

The PS5 is not at all similar to a PS4 Pro Pro. It has a MASSIVE increase in CPU power allowing for game engines that won't even boot up on the PS4. It has 100x faster storage than the PS4, again, allowing new engines that can't even load up on the PS4.

And GPU wise, yeah it is only twice as fast, but it is RDNA2 and has many features that the PS4 can't use. Not just ray tracing, but DirectX 12 level features. The GPU is the smallest improvement, mainly allowing double the frame rate of old PS4 Pro games until those features are put to use.

Playstation 4 has Ray Traced games.

The Playstation 4 however lacks hardware accelerated Ray Tracing.

Remember, Ray Tracing is essentially an algorithm, so games that use any form of bounce lighting (I.E. Global Illumination) is thus Ray Traced.

Soundwave said:

Historical precedent says Nintendo always makes a separate home console and portable ... until they didn't (and this point was hotly debated for a long time here with lots of people being in denial over a hybrid system not being possible because Nintendo had never done it before).

WiiU was a hybrid system. You can game independently of a TV.
It was a fixed home console with mobile (albeit limited) characteristics.

I don't know if many people would describe the Wii U as a hybrid system, more like a stationary console that has a controller with a screen on it that can play games on it. 

Technically I think even PS4 could do this if you had a Vita. But that's actually not the point, the point of contention and controversy prior to the Switch unveiling was Nintendo will not abandon the 2-system per generation setup they had going for almost three decades by that point because it was established tradition that Nintendo must have 2, even 3 distinct hardware products per generation (one portable, one home console at minimum). 

You can watch the hilarious reactions of people like Supermetaldave64 who were 100% sure the Switch could not be a hybrid, or if it was it couldn't be the only system Nintendo would make, there had to be a standard home console only and they were stunned by the Switch reveal. 

Having followed gaming for generations going back to the 80s even, there is no generation where certain trusted historical precedents aren't broken. Rules always change and evolve, 12 years ago if you told people here that Nintendo would amalgamate their home console and portable hardware into one unified device no one would believe you. 

If you said Playstation 5 and XBox Series X would have no major exclusives 2 years into their product cycle even from Sony and Microsoft themselves, no one would've believed that even 5 years ago. 

Companies only adhere to "historical precedents" if it serves their purpose in the present day/future, if it doesn't, they abandon and change things all the time. Also just announcing a new hardware doesn't really mean a whole lot, everyone knows Playstation 6, XBox Next, Switch 2, etc. etc. are already into development, Switch 2 probably nearing the end of its development cycle if it isn't in the full on prototype stage already.  

Last edited by Soundwave - 1 day ago

Soundwave said:

Ordering new hardware isn't like going into a drive through and just picking out a hamburger and fries.

Soundwave said:

If you order 5 pizzas for a dinner party, but then you decide at the last minute you don't want to have pizza that night but move the party to the following week, you're still paying for the pizzas you already ordered.

You like to compare things to food, don't you ?



"Quagmire, are you the type of guy who takes 'no' for an answer ?"
"My lawyer doesn't allow me to answer that question"

PSN ID: skmblake | Feel free to add me

Chrkeller said:
bowserthedog said:

Now that Nintendo only has one platform they need to release new hardware while its still selling well to avoid periods of time of low sales. 

Fair point, but my response was regarding a new Switch when BotW2 launches....  that ain't happening.  Perhaps a 2023 xmas new hardware?  Maybe.  2024, sure.  But we aren't getting new hardware in less than a year.  

*by new hardware I mean a real upgrade, not minor

It makes the most sense for Nintendo to release the new hardware with the new Zelda. I think it will happen. Nintendo loves to launch new hardware with a big game like Zelda. And the fact Nintendo has been so quiet when it comes to big games they are developing for a while now really lines up with the idea that they are holding off on games so they can launch them on Switch 2. Nintendo loves to have a drum beat of games supporting the new hardware for the first year or two after launch of the new hardware. 



Pemalite said:

sc94597 said:

Where are you getting this from? 

It seems highly unlikely that the Switch 2 is going to release with a chipset that is "roughly a base Xbox One." GCN 1.0 is pretty ancient compared to Ampere (about eight years older), this Switch 2 likely will have far faster memory (LPDDR5 > DDR3, and no the 32 MB of eSRAM doesn't totally make up for it), and of course a much better CPU than the Jaguar in the XBO. 

Even if we looked at theoretical performance of the rumored, hypothetical Switch Orin Chip, it is estimated to compute 1.9 FP32 TFLOPS, whereas the XBO only was estimated to compute 1.3 FP32 TFLOPS. And again, with the much better CPU, newer architecture, and better ram bandwidth this theoretical performance likely will be better realized in actual games. 

The Switch 2 likely won't be able to play at 4k, but 1080p (or close) and with DLSS 60fps (or higher) definitely is doable. 540p -> 1080p seems to only be a scenario that will happen for the seemingly inevitable Series S to Switch 2 ports, akin to what the Steam Deck does, but likely better if these specs are true or to improve battery life by running games at lower power settings. 

The issue with the Xbox One is that the eSRAM came at the expense of GPU resources, cutting back the Render Output Pipelines, Shader Pipelines, Texture Mapping Units for a high-speed cache... The result was a game of sacrifices rather than leveraging eSRAM to increase efficiency. - Which it can.

If Microsoft hypothetically had an identical GPU/Ram setup to the Playstation 4 and retained that 32MB of cache, there would have been no doubt the Xbox One would have had a graphics edge by a significant margin.

Sure. I don't think that is a disagreement. The 32 MB of eSRAM definitely does help with total realizable memory management, albeit it takes up a lot of space on the SoC at the expense of other resources. The interesting discussion is whether or not if Microsoft decided to go the expensive route and keep the DDR3 + eSRAM setup, but also have a bigger SoC that could match the PS4 by not compromising on other resources. (This wouldn't make sense to do, but we're talking hypothetically.) Would it "have had a graphics edge by a significant margin?" I think it would depend on a game-by-game basis and the nature of the assets being streamed from the memory to the CPU. Any title that was designed around a few but larger assets would probably advantage the PS4, while anything with many smaller assets would probably advantage the hypothetical XBO.