A desktop RTX 2060 has a much more powerful chip than the T239 or the rumored Lovelace Tegra that the Switch 2 is rumored to have. A desktop 2060 is also much closer to a PS5 in terms of performance than many think (roughly 20% less powerful in rasterization before DLSS; comparable in ray-tracing.) The PC version also has a variable resolution that changes based on the frame-target, so it is hard to benchmark well because the resolution automatically reduces to try to get to the frame-target. 

A desktop GTX 1650 is closer to what we should expect (given the rumors) the Switch 2's performance to be like in the best case scenario. Here is how it runs the game. 

 Basically at Ultra 1080p, FSR Performance mode (960 x 540 internally) is required to run the game at 60fps. Switch 2 might be able to run it a bit better though given that it probably will have more VRAM (which seems to be the issue here since the VRAM usage is at the cap and GPU core utilization is at 80ish %) and would benefit from being a closed-platform with a single target. With DLSS (rather than FSR) it should have better image quality. 

this is what switch 2 will same specs as the pro. don't expect any miracles switch 2 will be the same size as switch and nintendo doesn't care for secret sauce. basically ultra performance  DLSS, and 30fps cause DLSS looks better at 30fps.

You can't have it both ways. 

The reason the XBox Series S is able to display graphics "better" than a XBox One X despite a XB1X having higher teraflop performance is because the Series S has a more modern feature set, so even if it is only 1/3 the teraflop performance of the Series X, it can run the same games. 

But when it's pointed out that the Switch 2 will have a similar kind of massive improvement in being a more modern architecture (probably better actually than the PS5/XBX/XBS) than the PS4, the excuse becomes "well that's not really a big deal, it's still a PS4". 

Yet for the XBox Series S of course it gets given the benefit of the doubt. How convenient. A more modern feature set makes a massive difference, it can even basically push one console (Series S) into what's considered a different generation from another (XBox One X). 

I also would not be so sure that something like the XBox One X can't run modern games either, the Pro models for the PS4/XB1 are stuck basically having to run PS4/XB1 versions of games with just resolution/RAM improvements, they were intended to have exclusive software built specifically for their Polaris hardware (which is a lot better than the PS4/XB1's GCN2 garbage). No one's made a game expressly for the XBox One X ... I bet it can run a game like Starfield at 720p probably just fine but since it gets no exclusives apart from the XBox One, it'll never happen (Sony/MS have also basically cleared all stock of these models). 

It isn't clear what you think a video about 4k DLSS has to do with the post you're quoting. 

Nobody is talking about running the game at a 4k target. 1080p was the target being discussed. 

I don't know where you got the idea that "DLSS looks better at 30fps", but it is wrong. There is an argument to be made that with higher framerates the better the temporal solution (because the motion vectors are closer to the mark), but with DLSS (as opposed to heuristic-based TAUU's) this is a marginal factor. 

Also all of my posts haven't been talking about anything close to miracles. A portable system likely releasing at the end of 2024 running at about the performance of a low-end 75W desktop GPU based on a 2018 architecture, isn't a "miracle." It's the by-product of two transistor die shrinks (12nm -> 7nm -> 5nm) and the fact that the VRAM bottleneck of said GPU wouldn't be an issue for the portable system (4GB -> 8-10GB.) It's precisely what one would expect to happen. 

you expect that in a console that will be 349$ the same size as a switch? not mention nintendo is gonna be using something that should have came out in 2020-2021 but they cancelled there plans so its not like it's 2024 tech. to me it sounds like wishful thinking and not being realistic. aside from that if you watch the video he says DLSS works much better at 30fps if you wanna use ultra performance. 

Ok, but what does FF7R have to do with anything in my post?

The latest rumor is that the Switch is going to have a Lovelace GPU (that's 2024 technology, as Tegra Lovelace's aren't going to be in anything until then.) 

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Optimistic-Nintendo-Switch-2-specs-leak-puts-forward-huge-CPU-and-GPU-changes-that-would-render-Tegra-T239-obsolete.748000.0.html

If it does indeed have that chip rather than the T239, then yes it is possible to get GTX 1650 level performance in a 20W form-factor ("switch-size"), especially when you alleviate the biggest bottleneck that the 1650 has in recent titles (4GB of VRAM.) 

Again this isn't magic, it's the result of reducing the size of transistors from 12nm to 5 nm, and of course having more VRAM available. 

FFVII (the game we were talking about) is very demanding on VRAM. In the video we see that the 4GB of VRAM was bottlenecking the compute-load of the 1650 (it was at 80% utilization.) The Switch 2 won't have this issue if it has the rumored 12GB of total unified memory. 8 GB could be allocated to graphics, 4GB to the OS. 

Kopite, the leaker who leaked Tegra T239 before Nvidia mentioned has I believe said it's a custom Ampere chip with some Lovelace features. EDIT: It sounded like it's either ADA (Ampere) or Lovelace? He's not sure on that. It could be Lovelace. If it's Lovelace that's another curveball (in a good way). 

The chances it has the 2024 tech is like 1%. Nintendo loves to make profit from day one and T239 is already a huge jump from tegra, no reason for them to go with to go super high tech especially when every rumor says it won't even be a Olded display. I'll eat crow happily though and might even consider getting a switch 2 day 1 but it's not the nintendo way.

also i believe the only rumor worth attention is the one DF had with leaked documents and Nintendo is not gonna care about secret sauce or paying extra for it, it's been like that for 20 years now.

Tegra T239 was leaked like two years ago, lol, you guys were just not paying attention, the Tegra Orin that Tegra T239 is derived from was announced by Nvidia in 2019. 

Nintendo doesn't really have all the say here, this chip also has to work for Nvidia and in devices that they want and there's not like 10 different Tegra chips to choose from, there's going to be one generational leap upgrade consumer class version. The Tegra line is not big enough for Nintendo to choose here but I think people are underestimating how hard it is going to be to convince everyone to upgrade. A moderate upgrade IMO would create a lot of headaches for Nintendo especially when Switch 2 really can't look that much cosmetically different from a Switch 1 ... it has to have a big black slab of a screen in the middle and then Joycons on  the side ... if it is too much like the Switch 1, people are going to just think it's (well) a Switch 1. Even making the Wii U look too much like a Wii was a massive mistake.