To be fair, the Switch is capable of PS4-like visuals, even if it's not as powerful. It's really more about the graphics features and the tools supported vs. Raw technical specs. That's always how Nintendo approached hardware for it's handhelds, and Switch 2 looks to be no exception.

The issue here is what exactly is meant by comparable. Even with significant cutbacks someone could have the opinion that a game has comparable visuals to a version on a more powerful platform. If the cutbacks for big games are even somewhat less significant compared to the Switch 1 then it'll for sure be a very satisfying upgrade.

When I think of comparing visuals I think it only matters perceptually. If you're achieving the same visual end result with notably less raw power thanks to some technology or other (like dlss for example) then great, you can stand up to the "powerful" console.

That's why I argue that Switch 2 could reasonably achieve graphics "comparable" to PS4 or even PS4 Pro according to how much Nvidia and Nintendo are willing to put into the hardware when aiming for a certain price point. Some people here have laughed at me for saying this but, eh, why can't a 2024 dedicated portable hardware compare to or even outperform (perceptually) a 11 year old console if the engineering behind it is smart enough?

i would recommend people who're unsure of the semantics of "comparable" to listen to the podcast from the timestamp onward. it seems he doesn't just mean something like Doom 2016 on Switch levels of "comparable" due to heavily degraded assets, performance, literally everything. 

remember the Matrix demo running on NG switch rumors. not saying this is confirmed or to what levels it was running at but, it is alluded to in the podcast as well.

Welp, another rumor about "comparable" performance between dedicated home consoles and a hybrid home handheld console that's sure not to garner any bad forms of discussion here ...

Anywoo, I could care less about the Ray Tracing features of the Super Switch. More interested to hear and see from Nintendo themselves will try to bring in terms of new experiences or how they will try to push the system hardware's in interesting ways (Like Monolith Soft can do !)

RT performance is also contingent on the pre-raster geometry drawn by the GPU and the CPU, you can't get around that no matter how many dedicated cores you throw at the problem.

To be fair, though, in the best best best case scenario for the Switch successor (the Orin chip having ~2000 Ada cores and running at comparable clocks to consumer GPUs when docked), you might have matched the RT performance of a PS5 in extremely intensive scenarios like CP2077... if you hadn't the CPU bottleneck to contend with (assuming no DLSS).

I am sure whatever new chipset in the next hardware release for Nintendo it will have Nvidia tech if Nintendo continue to use them.  What I am saying is having the tech and the tech being able to be used effectively is something totally different based on how much Nintendo is willing to pay.  What level of performance do you believe the next hardware from Nintendo will be, especially if it remains as a mobile hardware like the Switch.  Nvidia isn't known for selling any of their hardware at a reduced price, its the reason why Sony and MS do not use them.  I doubt anything will change now.  Whatever chip Nintendo gets from Nvidia will be a very budget chipset and while it may have RT it will not be the focus of that chipset as RT still needs a lot of memory and very fast memory at that.  Nintendo is not going to price their next hardware in the same range as Sony and MS and if its still around 300 bones and still either make a profit or at most just break even only going to have so much performance.

At what price, that is the biggest question. 

not sure if you just don't know or decided to ignore it but, it's very likely that the next switch won't cost $300 and will, in fact, be more. let alone for the fact that it may need to due to inflation but, also because of these graphical prospects.

it also seems like you just simply have not watched the video at all? bc many of your comments are answered and given an alternative viewpoint from some very reliable sources that you may very well be wrong. like i said, it's your prerogative whether you want to believe them or not but to outright deny it bc of the below reason seems a little unfair. 

again, "bc nintendo is nintendo" is not a real argument. things change. also, nintendo was really only about low graphical performance under iwata in the post-Wii and DS era. leadership has changed.

Nobody and I mean nobody knows what the next price of the switch will be or even if it will be another iteration of the switch.  All we have is a bunch of rumors and speculations.  No one knows the price point Nintendo will go for but they have not even tried to go for the same price point as Sony and MS so why would they change that now. 

None of the technical features people seem to care about in the high end market has been a concern for Nintendo before so why would it be so now.  Until we see any real change in Nintendo stragety, why should anyone believe today is any different then the past.  Nintendo has not chased after graphical power for a while and nothing today make me believe they are looking to do so.  Yes, the next version of whatever hardware they come out with will be stronger than its previous version but nowhere have we seen Nintendo actually care about those particular buzz words because their games do not need them.  None of Nintendo games chases after realisms so RT while a nice addition I would still believe would not be the focus for their next hardware.