Nvidia doesn't do what AMD does which is just gift out their chips for dirt cheap. This is why the first XBox was discontinued (basically) actually because Nvidia refused to cut the price on the GPU as MS was eating large losses to keep dropping the price of the system. So they switched to the XBox 360 with an AMD GPU. 

Same thing with PS3, Sony added the Nvidia GPU late in the design process, but then they dumped them for AMD for the PS4 because AMD is cheaper. 

Nvidia won't sacrifice what they feel they should get per chip, they were fine with Sony and MS going elsewhere. 

Nintendo may be getting favorable pricing only because the Tegra line of processors outside of the Switch has turned into a dud for them basically, so the business they get from Nintendo basically fills a void for them. Even for self driving cars, like there's not a ton that use Nvidia's technology yet. 

PS5 runs FF7R I at 30 fps, 4K resolution in the graphics enhanced mode, which is what I'm assuming the Switch 2 port is probably running at too. My laptop runs FF7R Integrade at 55-60 fps at 4k resolution too, lol, the PS5 is somewhat a middling chipset, there's nothing that magical about it that you need to elevate it onto this massive pedestal. 

Sony has to release a PS5 Pro just to get proper 4K + some ray tracing because the current system doesn't manage it. 

The fact is graphics today are different too, graphics effects that may seem "little" like a small amount of mist added to a scene actually tanks performance hard because volumetric fog adds a ton of stress to the GPU. Moderate real-time ray tracing reflections can cripple a PS5 even if its running a game like Xenoblade 3 very easily if you ramp up the real-time lighting.

You can understand this if you use a 3D graphics program like Blender and just build a simple, even low poly scene with a few characters and simple background, something that even a current Switch or XBox 360 should run easily. But once you switch to Cycles rendering (which is realistically accounted for lighting and shadows) and then if you dare add volumetric fog ... that is going to cripple even a 3090 GPU if you try to run it in real-time, the frame rate will tank to like 2-5 frames per second. And the thing it's like the scene looks 50x better when you switch to Cycles either in all cases, it may look almost the same. 

400 Bison bucks and will launch on a Tuesday.

After 100 votes 399.99 remains the most popular option followed by 349.99

Your post is stupid. The massmarket isn't oblivious to the ever-dropping prices of SD cards. By the time Switch 2 is out, it should be very common to find 512 GB SD cards going for $50 and under. Heck, 1 TB micro SD cards cost only around $100 today.

If someone is digital-only and in need of more storage and has the choice between your hypothetical 256 GB Switch 2 for $450 or your hypothetical 64 GB Switch 2 with a 1 TB SD card for $500 combined... it's not hard to do the math here.

It's funny how you always jump on whatever the latest rumor is and come up with fantasy scenarios. Also funny how you love to talk about technology, but fail at pretty much the most basic level of storage capacity and its price.

Sure you can get a junk Micro SD Card for $50 with a lot of storage, but that's going to be a crap 100-170MB/sec card that's slow as molasses. Just like you can get an old regular fat HDD with 4TB and declare yourself a genius because you have way more storage than the NVMe drives Sony and MS sell for the PS5/XSX. There's just one problem, your drive is a turtle by comparison. 

Nintendo could easily get UFS 3.0 or 3.1 speed internal flash storage, which can have up to 2100MB/sec read speed, it will blow any SD Card out of the water. And UFS 3.0 isn't some magical new or exotic technology, it's just the standard flash memory that's in hundreds of millions of Android phones and tablets already. And UFS 3.0 is the *old* standard from 2018, the new Android devices use UFS 4.0 which is double the speed, so Nintendo would likely be getting the 3.0/3.1 dated version for a laugher of a cost. 

If Nintendo were to offer it, I think plenty of people would rather pay the extra $50 and have the higher speed internal storage. Relative to what you pay to go up in storage for say an iPhone or iPad, getting double or quadruple (lol) the amount of high speed internal storage that's way faster than an SD Card for only $50 more is not bad at all. Also a lot of those cheap SD Cards have high failure rates and don't actually even hit the low end speed they claim, seen plenty of "150MB/sec cards" Micro SD cards that when tested are only reading at 80MB/sec if you're lucky ... you get what you pay for. 

UFS flash storage has other big advantages over older flash storage too, it's smaller and consumes less battery power. 

2 SKUs at launch:
$399 for standard switch 2.
$299 a lite like switch 2, with no dock, no attachable controller (built-in controllers instead) and half storage.

I don't think a Lite type option is going to happen until like 2026. If the Switch 2 is a 5nm chipset, then probably not until 3nm is cheap and easy to manufacture, just like Switch started on 20nm and then in 2019 they released the Lite/Mariko models at 16nm. 

I've been talking about the prices of Samsung and SanDisk micro SD cards. Do some research before you post.

Those are still slow as shit, do you own research. Micro SD Cards are an incredibly dated format it doesn't matter who makes the card. 150MB/sec (and you don't even get that speed) in today's day and age is laughable. 

Nintendo is probably going have to change something because if the Switch 2 has more RAM than the Switch 1 (which is almost 100% a given), the loading times that are already pretty bad on the Switch are going to get worse if you just stick to slow ass SD Cards and flash storage from 2010. 150MB/sec to fill an 8GB main memory would take 53 seconds, that's absurdly slow, if the Switch 2 has 12GB or 16GB it's even worse. 

Even UFS 2.2, which is ancient and dirt cheap used in budget smartphones for the market in China/India is way faster than an SD Card or the current Switch cartridges. I think Nintendo will change that up to faster flash storage. UFS 2.2 is 1200MB/sec versus an SD Card, even a more expensive "pro" SD Card tops out at like 190MB/sec. 

I can't see Nintendo sticking with the current data speeds they have now, so if the Switch 2 uses even dirt cheap, old ass UFS 2.2, that's going to be a massive speed boost over the Switch 1 flash storage which was already faster than SD Cards. In layman's terms, take a look at this loading time:

For Switch 2, even using UFS 2.2 (again a very dated/cheapo flash storage), that loading time for the internal storage would easily be 5x-8x faster, so like the whole point of "well you can just buy a cheap SD Card!" doesn't come close to telling the whole story. An SD Card is slow as fuck and while it can (barely) keep up with the Switch 1's internal storage, Switch 2 will almost certainly destroy an SD Card in a comparison like above, so in your scenario you claim the person who bought the SD Card was super smart, but they'll be sitting waiting 40-60 seconds waiting for their game to load, while if Switch 2 uses any kind of modern flash storage ... they will be playing that same game within 5-8 seconds if that. Again, you get what you pay for, SD Cards are cheap for people who don't have money, but that's about it. A Switch 2 with more internal flash storage even at 1200MB/sec is going to blow the socks off any SD Card and would easily be worth $50 more going from 64GB to 256GB, that's bordering on a steal frankly.