On a 8 inch display? 1080p is more than fine, even 720p is fine so long as the image quality itself is good. 

Ray Reconstruction is available on all RTX GPU's.

No Ray reconstruction was the defacto model prior to DLSS 3.5.

It doesn't confirm what architecture or chip it's using.

Before the Switch even launched, there was a better chip, higher performing, more efficient chip.

The Tegra X2.

Could have offered 50% more performance at the same TDP.

I generally like higher density displays.

However for the sake of battery life, lower is better.

But there is a middleground between 720P and 1080P like 768P, 800P, 900P... There are options.

But it also throws a spanner in the works when you can't do integer scaling to other displays on a successive device.

And the PS5/XBox Series X could have used the 6000 series AMD cards which were launching in fall 2020 ... but no one says those are badly outdated at launch (definitely were behind the Nvidia 30 series). 

I also think Nintendo was targeting holiday 2016 for Switch they just barely missed it. They had nothing for holiday 2016 and were forced to release the NES Classic to kind of fill in the lack of product they had to sell, they just couldn't release Switch at that time probably because the software would not have been ready. 

The bottom line is the Tegra X1 was still on the very high end of mobile chips for late 2016/2017. It was a better chip that the Apple A10 that was in expensive iPhones and about on par with an Apple A9X which a monster of a chip for an $800 iPad Pro. 

All consoles launch with out dated chips to keep prices down and to theoretically keep stock up.

Consoles gamers aren't going to pay $800 for hardware.  The ps3 launch was a mess because of price.

And out dated hardware isn't a problem.  High end tech is expensive.  I'm building a PC rig and I expect to spend $1500 to $2000.  I don't want the ps5 and switch 2 to be overly expensive.  The ps5 and switch are about exclusive software, not elite hardware.  

The Switch hardware for a mobile chip was "elite" for 2016. It was at the top of the class. An Nvidia mobile chip that's 8 years later and is the same for 2023/24 as the Tegra X1 was for 2016 ... you're gonna have something that cooks. 

I doubt the Switch was ever going to be less than $399.99. The days of Nintendo selling dirt cheap hardware are over, instead of cutting the Switch price they went UP with Switch OLED to $350, and have refused to budge from $300 minimum from the Switch for 6 1/2 years, lol. People are paying hand over fist $350 for a Switch OLED today, right now. 

If Switch 2 is $399.99 great. I could see $449.99 on a second SKU with more storage for sure. Like if 512GB is legit, I think that's going to be a $450 ask.

You got to pay to play these days. No one is giving you something for free. XBox Series S and Switch Lite basically remain the industry's primary "budget" options and Nintendo refused to give the Lite docked ability even though they probably could have. Their message is fairly straight forward, if you want the full hybrid experience, you ain't getting it for less than $300. 

It would be a dream to me if Nintendo finally gets almost all the 3rd party titles again (minus the exlusive deals and some weird decisions to not release a certain game on Switch 2) and that they look and play good or, for the most taxing games, at least decent. 1080p, 60fps docked for lower to mid-range games, 800-900p, 30fps for high-end games (in handheld mode scaled down accordingly) would be good enough for me.

I want all the new mainline Resident Evil's, Elden Ring's, Street Fighter's, Tekken's, Final Fantasy's, Assassin Creed's, Far Cry's, Star Wars', Devil May Cry's, Monster Hunter World's...and all new IP's from the big players to come out for Switch 2 and that they look and play good or decent at least.

Together with the top-notch 1st party IP's and the many great indies it would be may favourite console ever made! (only to be topped by the Switch 3 much later).

Microsoft did. Sony's is a little more custom, but may as well be a Radeon 6000 (RDNA2) derived part.

You think? So you don't have evidence for this hypothesis?

Other chips could beat it in memory transactions, CPU performance (by a country mile) and storage performance.

Adreno 530 could beat the Switch's Tegra X1 as the Tegra X1 in the Switch operates at only 30-75% of it's original clock... And considering the Adreno was already able to outbench Tegra in some benchmarks and get close-enough in others despite the Tegra being in a higher TDP form factor and thus not throttling...

You get the idea.

I think it's a little bit of a misnomer that the Tegra X1 was the best chip for the Switch. - After it got it's clocks massively castrated... It simply wasn't.

The link you posted is very informative.
I hope lots of people visit there.

Regarding the price concern,
SOC cost seems to be less than $50.

SOC for the PS4 was $90.
Series X's were $180~$200 imo.

You might as well also litigate that the PS5/XBX should have used Nvidia 30 series cards which are better than what they have under the hood and were available in 2020. 

From 2016:

https://wccftech.com/snapdragon-820-benchmarks/

Taking a look at the Manhattan scores above, the Adreno 530 manages to beat nearly every device out there in terms of scores and ties up with Google's Pixel C; which comes with Nvidia's Tegra X1 on board.

It wasn't able to outperform a Tegra X1 in the gold standard GFX 3.0 Manhatten test despite coming out after the Tegra X1. And this is a GPU mind you that was going into like $800 flagship phones, I know because I had the Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge which had this GPU. 

Now you can nitpick all you want, the bottom line is no way was the Tegra X1 not a top end chip, even when Nintendo chose it there was little available that was better for 2016 and the alternatives were basically being used in premium high end iPads or top of the line Samsung phones. You can argue you'd rather have this, but it's not like somehow you'd be playing Witcher 3 at double the resolution if the Switch had an Adreno 530 in it. It is an contemporary of the Tegra X1, not a successor level type hardware. Tegra X1 was on launch date absolutely the best of the best, later in late 2015/early 2016 Apple and Adreno (Snapdragon) were able to catch up, but that doesn't mean the Tegra X1 was some terrible chip. 

If Sony made a PSP3 with an Adreno 530 vs a Nintendo Switch with a Tegra X1, you're talking about like PS5 vs a XBox Series X, some people will claim one hardware is better, some people will claim the other, the fact is neither is in a class outside of the other. 

This isn't a Subway sandwich store where you get to chose everything you want in pre-built hardware. You have to give the hardware maker some leeway in making their hardware decisions, it's not "I want exactly X, Y, and Z". If that's what you want, you want a PC, not a prebuilt config of anything, it's not reasonable to hold a hardware manufacturer (Nintendo, Sony, MS, Samsung, whoever) to that standard. 

It's an interesting post for sure, they really go into some real depth with their view on it. If Nintendo could get that chip for that price, you take it and run. From their post https://pastebin.com/V5nTeh4h :

1. GPU:
2. 1 GPC/12 SM Nvidia Ampere (GA10F)
3. 1536 CUDA Cores, 12 RT Cores, 48 Tensor Cores
4. DLSS 2 and Ray Tracing support (documented in NVN2 API)
5. Either 1MB or 4MB L2 cache (NVN2 has conflicted details across 2 separate documents)
6. 660MHz SM frequency at Power Level 3 (4.2W power draw), 2 TFLOPs FP32
7. 1.125GHz SM frequency at PL1 (9.3W power draw), 3.456 TFLOPs FP32

2 TFLOP undocked, 3.45 TFLOP docked ... yeah I'll take that.