We still don't know if the SOC is 5 or 8nn process? It seems too powerful for 8nm but did N really spend money on Samsung 5nm?

Could be dock mode is using a lot more power than we think. If they loosened the TGP to 20-25W and got some efficiencies with node maturation they could pull off the semi-confirmed frequencies. 

If they knew they were going to release the platform so late, they probably would've gone with a Lovelace chip and be able to have something more powerful than the Series S in many ways when docked (assuming the TGP is loosened.) 

I still think it is probably 5nm, but the low battery life makes me wonder. 

I'd say they're pretty evenly matched for the value:  The PS5 is expensive because of powerful tech, Switch 2 is expensive because it's highly capable for its form factor.

I guess time will tell. You're obvs much more knowledgeable about the underlying tech.

I don't think DF have an axe to grind though, they seem to be calling it how they see it.

They also seem pretty sure it's 8nm, going by the reported dimensions of the board.

CDPR are obviously very talented but they made a bit of a dog's dinner of the PS4 & Xbox One port so who knows, again let's hope for the best & see.

You mentioned in your post to numberwang that Nintendo could have gone with Lovelace over Ampere.

If DF are correct and we've ended up with an 8nm Ampere when we could have got a 5nm Lovelace setup you can maybe understand my slight deflation as that would have been a serious step up.

I can't help but think that if it was MS or Sony's project they would have made that level of hardware happen whereas Nintendo always seem to go a bit mid...

A big part of Nintendo's audience have grown up & are likely more tech savy than generations past & I think more ambitious hardware would have gone down well & increased the longevity of the system. I know I've tailed off on using my OG Switch as I preferred to wait & play games like TOTK & even Link's awakening on hardware that could comfortably handle it.

I'm not sure how much they'd have had to charge but personally I'd have been happier to pony up an extra 25 to 50 bucks if it meant cutting edge vs what we've seemingly ended up with, which just seems 'fine'.

Sony didn't "charge less" for PS5; they charged what they thought would make them the most money; they took a loss on hardware (initially) because they make it back by having more people to milk for subscription money.

Nintendo isn't as focused on subscriptions and the like, and they don't have a ton of other huge non-gaming divisions to draw money from like Sony and MS do.

Switch 2 is already apparently sold at a loss, no company on earth would eat a further loss if it didn't benefit them.

Switch 1 launched at the same price as the PS4 and was less powerful, yet people clearly saw the Switch as better value since it outsold the PS4 by miles.

Fun fact - 4050 mobile vs 3050 mobile (2560 version, so both with same 2560:80:32:80:20 config) is some 30% faster on average for same power draw.

That's what 4nm for 4050 vs 8nm for 3050 does, basically allowing for much higher clocks in 4050. So yeah, it would be really nice if Nintendo went with smaller node, which is not very likely.

Exactly. If the OG Switch had been 30% stronger then perhaps I and others wouldn't have held off on purchasing TOTK & other software and Nintendo would have had more money on the back-end to offset the higher initial investment (not saying that they had an option to achieve this with OG Switch, just pointing out S2 could suffer a similar fate).

My fear is that DLSS may be too expensive in a lot of situations for S2 (this was touched on by DF in their Cyberpunk analysis), which would be a major bummer...

30% more grunt would have given them the extra headroom and then some.

Based on what I was replying to before, I meant it as the hardware directly being able to push the software, and the software needing beefier hardware. I wasn't taking portability into account with that statement. However if you were taking overall functionality into account, then yes, it evens the playing field in terms of overall usefulness, assuming the mobility is important if not key to those using the device. For those who leave it docked, then that wouldn't be as true for them.

Again, SNY wanted to charge more for PS5, but decided against it. They also had multiple designs prepared. They didn't choose the weaker design for cheaper, or even if the PS5 we got was the cheapest design, then they should've delayed the launch way early, and downgraded the hardware based on your thought process, but they didn't.

Nin is moving more and more towards subscriptions. You don't make a chat button and then lock it behind a sub (after a year) if you're not looking to grow and profit from your subscription business.

MS constantly ate it with XB in the earlier gens, and then early on with GP. SNY ate PS3 early on, and they ate it hard. Did those losses "benefit" them? Even in the long run? That's not to say Nin should put themselves in that situation right now, obviously not, but Nin as a company, and SW2 as a device, are nowhere near that realm of hurt, which means there's wiggle room.