I think so too. What we can realisticly hope is maybe xbox one power, and if we are very lucky. 

Agreed.  Xbox One is realistic.  I've heard people expecting ps4 pro.....  I would be stunned if that turned out true.  

A lot of this stuff is meaningless without factoring how DLSS impacts things. 

An XBox One if it somehow had DLSS could theoretically match a PS4 Pro because it would only have to render at a fraction of the resolution potentially. 

If a PS4 Pro is rendering a game at native 1800p (which is kind of a standard res for the PS4 Pro), and the XBox One only has to render the same game at 720p ...

3200x1800 resolution = 5,760,000 pixels to render for the PS4 Pro

1280x720 native resolution, then DLSSed up to say 1800p = 921,000 pixels to render for the Switch 2. 

The PS4 Pro has to render more than 6x as many pixels. And actually DLSS can reconstruct 4K from a native res as low as 720p:

The first 1:30 or so of the video you can see they are getting Death Stranding to run from some insanely low resolutions, including getting 4K resolution from only 720p native. 

The Switch 2 will likely have better CPUs and much more modern feature sets than the XBox One as well, the XB1/PS4 CPUs were junk even for their time (ARM A78x cores that are reportedly in the Switch 2 chip are way better), and XB1/PS4 GPUs are also ancient GCN1.5 designs, a Switch 2 probably you're talking Nvidia Ampere-based which is technically even more advanced architecture than the PS5/XB1's RDNA2. 

Raw grunt power isn't everything. 

I feel like this is splitting hairs, whether it’s as powerful as XBO or PS4 is beside the point, basically people are saying it will be a full generation leap over Switch.

So in the way that Switch can run all/most AAA PS3/360 games while also being able to get some AAA PS4/XBO down ports, people expect Switch 2 to be able to run all/most AAA PS4/XBO games while being able to get some AAA PS5/XBSX down ports.

Ps4 vs xbox is splitting hairs...  which is why I said I'm not buying the ps4 pro.....

I was going off your previous post as well when you said you don’t see PS4 power but XBO power is possible.

XBO as the absolute upper threshold.  I think it will be likely a bit under it.  But isn't unreasonable, just the max. 

There is no way that XB1 is the upper threshold. From a GPU standpoint that's probably middle ground from a pure mathematical viewpoint (with more modern feature sets to improve development). CPU and RAM will be better than that for sure. 

Threshold based on price, battery and Nintendo being Nintendo.  

Not upper threshold based technology.

I would love to be wrong but it feels like people are getting excited and building expectations....  while forgetting this Nintendo.

Was the Switch just at par with the XBox 360 or below it? 393 GFLOPS docked (this is underclocked too) + more modern architecture was certainly a step beyond the XBox 360 which is rated at 250 GFLOPS.

So why is it so unbelievable to you that the Switch 2 would be something similar relative to the PS4 (better performance)? 

I mean if you want to play the "Nintendo's history!!!" card, every one of their portable successors has been clearly a full generation upgrade over the previous system. Yes or no? 

The DS wasn't just "sorta" better than the GBA ... it was clearly a full generation ahead (real 3D polygons, PSOne/N64 tier 3D not just well 3x better than the GBA). So was the GBA over the GB. So was 3DS over DS. Switch is clearly a full generation ahead of the 3DS and more. The Switch isn't "just barely an XBox 360 or PS3" either ... it's clearly better than both of those systems. It can run games like DOOM Eternal and Witcher 3 that the XBox 360 or PS3 wouldn't be able to. 

Yes Nintendo doesn't always go for cutting edge, but I think you're being overly dramatic here as well, if Nintendo operated the way you say they do, the Switch would be probably below the XBox 360, not a 1.5x improvement in teraflop performance.