The Switch OLED has 64 GB right now. I don't think they will go below 128 GB.

I also don't think there will be two skus at launch. Why would they do that?

That is needlessly complicated. They will want to keep it simple and straight forward.

I could see two SKUs for the reason that

1.) People who are digital only or even a big chunk of their library is digital need a lot more storage space, especially if Switch 2 is going to be a kind of PS4-to-PS5 in-between-ey kind of deal as it sounds like. The Call of Duty games are over 120GB just for one game, now probably they will make an effort to compress some of that, but those games will still eat up a ton of space. And the crowd that is buying digital these days is getting bigger and bigger, I think physical media (sadly) is going to be a minority audience going forward. Even for physical cart buyers, odds are a lot of 3rd party games will opt to only put a minimal amount of data on the cart (or in some cases none at all) and require you to download the rest too, so there's no getting around the need for lots of storage space. 

2.) It makes Nintendo more money. They can charge $50 more for a 256GB model (over say a 128GB for the standard model), but the truth is Nintendo as a massive bulk manufacturing order is going to be getting that extra 128GB in storage space for a lot cheaper than $50. They probably pay $10 or less to double the storage space but get to charge $50 more for it. You got to like that math if you're Nintendo. 

$399.99 - 64GB or 128GB
$449.99 - 256GB

Wouldn't shock me exactly. 

Lol, switch 2 isn't running FF 7 remake at ps5 quality.  On the ps5 the game is 1620p at 60 fps.....  why anybody believes a Nintendo hybrid is going to pull that off is beyond me.

Yeah, "PS5 quality" is stretching it too far.

Could the Switch 2 run FF7R? If it's the standard generational upgrade, absolutely. But TWO generational upgrades? Yeah, that's the part that kills this rumor for me.

I could be proven wrong in time but if these form factor price friendly super powerful energy efficient chips are as promised -> where are all the gaming laptops and form factor desktop offerings?

Probably because you don't understand what Super Performance Mode on DLSS 2.2 can do. 

First of all lets start with what FF7R Intergrade actually is ... it's a PS4 game with some added lighting + volumetric fog/mist effects and some better textures in areas. It's not a complete graphics overall at all. 

The Switch 2 is likely an Ampere based chip which is light years better than the now ancient PS4 GCN1.5 GPU architecture which was launched in 2012 (will be 12 years old by the time the Switch 2 launches). So being able to accommodate more modern lighting and textures for a much newer architecture in itself is nothing that amazing. FF7R Integrade does run on a Steam Deck. It runs on my laptop, I should know because I play the game on my laptop, lol. 

The main issue is it runs at a lower resolution, much lower. But this is where DLSS tips the scales. A PS5 version of graphics mode (30 fps) has to render at 4k which 3840x2160 (8,294,400 pixels). It's entirely possible a Switch 2 version of FF7R Integrade is only running at 1/9th that resolution docked (1280x720). 

DLSS 2.2 can create a 4K image from even just 1280x720 native (only 921,600 pixels). 

Is the PS5 9x more powerful than a Switch 2 docked? I doubt it. The PS4 is only 4.75x the teraflop performance of a Switch 1, I suspect the gap between the Switch 2 and PS5 will be pretty similar actually. Looking at the Tegra T239, if its clocked exactly the same as the Switch 1 (768 MHz), you get teraflop performance that is in the range of 2.3 TFLOP docked, that's about the exact same difference in tflop performance to the PS5 (10.8 teraflops) as the Switch 1 (393 GFLOPS) to the PS4 (1.8 TFLOP). 

Maybe they toned down some of the volumentric fog/mist effects (which honestly I think makes the game look worse in some areas), but in theory a chip like the Tegra T239 should be able to do what was described, which is to run a PS4 game with better lighting and some texture fixes at a low resolution and then let DLSS take over and ramp that resolution way up. 

Again here is DLSS 2.0 and how it can create images at 9 times the native resolution:

Hopefully you are right and I am wrong. My skepticism is driven by the fact I don't see people using this supposed revolutionary technology. Rog Ally, Deck, Legion Go, Gaming Laptops, form factor desktops, ps5, Xbox, etc.

Something just feels asmiss when your sales pitch is this being the greatest thing ever, meanwhile none of the big players seem to give a crap about it.  

And mentioned at least a dozen times previously in our discussions, time will tell.

None of those devices have DLSS. 

Nvidia doesn't want to give out their chips to small time vendors like that, which is why they all use cheap AMD parts instead. 

But even ROG Ally, Steam Deck, all those devices can run Final Fantasy VII Intergrade. I have FF VII Intergrade on my laptop, it can even run it on battery power where the GPU is throttled. Intergrade is the PS5 version btw, the PS4 version is basically only on (well) the PS4, the PS5 and PC versions are all Intergrade, probably same goes for Switch 2 if that report is true. 

Small time vendors?  Lol, you are a funny guy.  Nvidia doesn't want to sell their chips.  Got it, totally makes sense.

Running FF and running it like the ps5 are not the same thing.  1620p at 60 fps is what the ps5 does.  

Time will tell.  But I'm glad we have a logical answer as to why nobody is using the worlds most revolutionary chips that will change gaming, Nvidia doesn't want to sell them.