An RTX 2050 with modern ARM cores is significantly beyond a PS4, I would say that's closer to an XBox Series S than a PS4.

Digital Foundry were running Cyberpunk 2077 at settings equivalent to the PS5 version of the game and running games like A Plague's Tale Requiem, which is one of the best looking next-gen exclusives and these games aren't even specifically optimized for that chip, if you had an actual dev team sit down and specifically tailor every bit of performance and coded specifically for that chip, you're probably talking another uptick in performance past even what DF was getting. 

When the RTX 3050ti does outperform the RTX 3050 6GB, we're looking at 5%-10% gains in average framerates (but still often worse 1% lows.) When the RTX 3050 6GB outperforms the RTX 3050ti 4GB, such as in Assassins' Creed Valhalla or Forza Horizon 5, we're looking at 30-70% higher average framerates (and much better 1% lows.) 

The 3050ti and 3050 6GB have the same number of CUDA cores (which is why I didn't bring up the 3050 4GB.) 

Notice the 1940 Mhz core clock for the 3050ti versus 1785 Mhz for the 3050 6GB. The 13450HX is a moderately better CPU than the 5600H, but neither seems to be over-utilized (although I suppose we would have to see each core to tell for certain.) 

Yes, it is 95W vs. 75W, BUT the GPU clocks are comparable and the 3050 is running at roughly 72W. 1965 MHz for the 3050ti and 1942 for the 3050 6GB. And the difference is +74%. That's not just because of a 20 watts difference, especially when that difference isn't affecting max clock rates. 

I don't think it will be the target for every game and especially not for the most demanding games. I think most games will have native 720-900p, upscaled to 1080p (or maybe a bit higher when 900p is the internal resolution.) But for many games 1080p is viable. BOTW isn't the most demanding game, but it is still impressive that the Switch 2 is able to run it at 4k (upscaled, likely from 1080p) 60fps, given that enhanced 360 games (ex: Mirrors Edge) on the Series S tend to target 1440p 60fps.  

But yeah, given that even the PS5 has some games that fail to reach 1080p natively in performance mode, it is unrealistic to expect the most demanding Switch 2 games to reach that mark. 

Sure, and we've seen what had to be done to Hogwarts Legacy to get it to run on Switch. It's not surprising that given the state of the Switch version, it can run in a 3GB pool. My point though is that I don't anticipate Nintendo's OS increasing significantly from 1GB to >2.5GB unless they add more features (media apps, achievements, better streaming overlays, browsers, etc.) I suppose if they go hardcore on a ram-hungry security system to prevent privacy it's possible, but that is the only scenario where I can see it. 

Never disputed that having higher memory bandwidth can be beneficial. The actual evidence has shown us though that at the resolutions these low-end GPU's target, memory capacity bottlenecks still happen often enough that having more memory can be useful. From a cost perspective it isn't clear that having enough unified memory that 6GB of VRAM can be utilized when these bottlenecks occur on other platforms is more expensive than say, doubling (or even increasing by 50%) throughput the modules that allow for an effective 4GB (suppose they could go the Series S path an have lower bandwidth ram for the OS to make up for it.) And again, what we see is that when the 3050 6GB outperforms the 3050ti it is on the order of 30-50% improvements, whereas when the 3050ti outperforms the 3050 6GB it is along the lines of 5%-10% improvement. 

This entire comment thread was in response to a part of my original post that was arguing that a 2050 4GB level Switch (even when neutered, as Digital Foundry had done) would be roughly Rog Ally performance mode (15W) level. I do think the Switch 2 will be "roughly as powerful as a 2050 4GB", possibly slightly better. Whether or not it is roughly as powerful as a neutered 2050 4GB was what I was getting at when I said I think they're underestimating it. 

For three reasons: 

1. I suspect that the Switch 2 (either because it is a closed platform with targeted optimizations or because of the flexibility of unified memory) won't have graphics memory capacity bottlenecks to the same degree as the 2050. Remember, both platforms (again assuming Switch 2 is what we all think it is) have roughly similar memory throughput, so it is the capacity that is the distinction. You suggested that swapping from system memory means that this isn't much of an issue for the 2050, but we've seen with the 3050 6GB vs. 3050ti 4GB comparison, that that isn't always the case (i.e Assassins'' Creed Valhalla, Forza Horizon 5.) Of course the 2050 is weaker than the 3050 and 3050ti, but not that much weaker that we should expect the bottleneck scenario to be much different, just relatively less. 

2. There is a good chance that the Switch 2 will be on a 5/4nm TSMC node (especially if it releases late 2024/early2025 and will be updated with a refresh say 2028-2029), meaning that underclocking to the base clock of the RTX 2050 might be too aggressive of a simulation. Of course, if the Switch 2 is running at Switch TGP levels, maybe not. 

3. While closed platform optimization doesn't mean as much as it used to, there is still an advantage. As you said, "developers build their software for the hardware environment", but that is much more difficult with open platforms than closed platforms. 

Anyway, I have argued that the Switch 2 would likely be roughly in between the 2050 and 3050 (30-35W) in terms of performance for the last few months. Closer to the prior than the latter, but probably a bit better than the prior still. You and a few others thought that even the 2050 was a stretch. Digital Foundry makes a video suggesting that that is likely a good estimate for what we should expect. The whole point of that original post was to argue that the Switch 2 and Rog Ally  should be roughly comparable, even if we take Digital Foundry's estimate as the most likely outcome. 

Another thing to consider is that the 2050 in the Digital Foundry test was not able to run the Matrix Awakens demo due to VRAM capacity limitations. We are all pretty confident (Digital Foundry as well) that the Switch 2 (or at least a dev kit version of it) ran the demo.

What is the thought on storage for the S2? I ask because most modern AAA titles are 60 to 100 gb. Cartridges are not cheap nor are they fast. Even the V90 SD I think are 100 to 200 mb/s read speeds. Not much compared to the M2 5000+ mb/s. M2 is expensive, and I don't see Nintendo going that route. I honestly don't know how they plan on handling storage.

CFExpress could be an option. Somewhat expensive (cheapest I could find is $98 for 512GB; $164 for 1TB), but prices could come down enough by the time the Switch 2 releases, and if it induces enough demand for mass production. 

Right now they're mostly sold to professional photographers, which is a small niche market. 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1785567-REG/silicon_power_sp512gbcfeb21v10_512gb_cfexpress_type_b.html

As for internal storage I am guessing Nintendo will go with a relatively cheap 512 GB 2230 solution. They can get as low as $20 per unit if bought in bulk purchases of millions, and the price will get cheaper over the life of the system. 

And of course, Nintendo should support USB SSDs for playing games in docked mode/backup storage to swap them between the internal drive and external drive. 

The only thing I am stumped on is what cartridges they use. Maybe they'll require installs from relatively slow ROMs (100 MB/s - 200 MB/s) and push digital hard. 

Edit: A year ago that same exact 512GB CFExpress card cost $249, so prices seem to be dropping. 

Edit 2: They gobble up 2.5W though, which is a bit much for a portable device that likely won't exceed 12W undocked. In comparison a Micro SD card gobbles up .5W. CFExpress Type A gobbles up 1.75W which isn't much better than Type B and is far more expensive currently. 

One of the reasons I beleive the 512 gb internal storage is I could see cartridges requiring installation before use.  

I also agree the dock will need to support some sort of bulk storage.  Games are just huge these days.  100 gb isn't abnormal.

Good information, thanks.

I have this feeling they will lean more into digital and we'll see even more third party devs have mandatory downloads on physical copies or a bigger focus on cloud gaming.

Storage on the system itself would be nice to get at least 512gb, but 256gb is probably the ceiling, if that.

As for performance; I reckon mid- to late-gen Switch 2 exclusives could probably pass as launch Series S multiplats, taking into account the advancements made with AI upscaling and possible mid-gen refresh.

No, similar is a pretty straightforward word when compared to "equivalent". The degree of similarity can be subjective and discussed, true, but it is undeniable that the objects are not equivalent (no difference at all in qualities when interchanged). From that line, we can discuss how much the objects have in common, but substantial differences are a given when using the world "similar". Unlike "equivalent".

About your second quote... Sure, it's quite the hyperbole. I don't think the Switch 2 will "wipe the floor" of the PS4/Pro in like... Being leagues above them.

However, I don't think said user actually meant that PS5 = Switch 2. That would be nuts. I think it should be expected to have a hardware that compares quite favourably to them in terms of raw power (specially the base PS4). And given the fact that Switch 2 will have access to much more modern features and technology, I think there will be a gap between PS4/Pro and Switch 2 in favor of the later. Probably not a huge gap mind you, but noticeable nonetheless.

To me, the Switch concept is a blessing. I don't have much time to play videogames at home. I spend two hours a day or more in public transportation. So, while I expect a reduction in visual fidelity and performance when I play a multiplatform titles on Switch, as long as the overall experience is acceptable, I'm quite happy to be able to play them on the go. Although of course, the main attraction are still the Nintendo first party titles xD

With the Switch 2 I expect that this situation will get even better, with a bigger percentage of multiplats having ports, the ports themselves being probably better than the ones we got on Switch 1 (nothing crazy, but probably less blurryness and more stable framerates?) and Nintendo games being able to finally make the big jump from Wii U era worlds and visuals. I would be quite happy with just that... And I think these are pretty reasonable expectations. 

I'm more interested in battery life instead of raw power.
It have been my biggest disappointment with all recent Nintendo handhelds since the DS Lite which had great battery life. Since then it seems to not be as relevant of a metric. Currently one pretty much need to play next to a power outlet.

Hopefully if the concept is just an upgrade to what switch is they can use the dock to improve performance a lot compared to handheld mode. Making it not feel underwhelming as home console or as a handheld.

While I think this is only true with the 2017 model (2h 30min on BotW, decreasing with years of use, WTF?), it got much better with the Lite, 2020 and OLED models.

But since we are talking about a new, much more powerful (and hungry) console, I'm concearned about this as well. Ideally, I would want at least 3h minimum with the most taxing games. Maybe it's unrealistic, but I can dream xD