I can see the next Xenoblade being 30fps on Switch 2, as these games typically emphasize vast and detailed open worlds.

Yeah, 30 FPS is fine for this game. The thing, I think, would be pop-up reduction. There is clearly a loading priority that loads environmental details effectively, giant monsters effectively, but then the smaller elements are de-prioritized and load only as the player gets close enough - and if traveling at high speeds (such as with the upgraded Hræsvelgr in jet-flight mode... which is fucking fun), may actually load after you arrive on location.

Limitation of the engine rather than Switch.

There is no "general consensus" yet. And no, it's not necessarily better than a PS4 Pro with or without DLSS factored in. Digital Foundry pegs it at around base PS4 level, but I'm not gonna take their words at face value either.

It has a better CPU and more RAM available for developers than a PS4 Pro, but it lags behind in other areas. There will be many cases where DLSS will fail at elevating Switch to PS4 Pro level. Cyberpunk's image quality is likely inferior to PS4 Pro version even with DLSS on. These systems have different bottlenecks.

And a game having no PS4 version doesn't mean it's impossible on PS4. Several games that skipped PS4 are available on Switch 1 and PS5/Xbox Series. SteamDeck (PS4 level) is capable of playing most current gen exclusives decently.

There are increasingly exceptions that are becoming more of the norm though. Steam Deck struggles with Star Wars Outlaws, Alan Wake 2, Indiana Jones, and now Elder Scrolls Remastered, for example. 

Basically any game with mandatory ray tracing struggles to keep 30fps on the Steam Deck, unless you break the game by turning off the lighting or you run the titles at like 300p-400p.

I actually think the Steam Deck does better than the PS4 or PS4 Pro would have in these games though. 

Where Steam Deck, Switch 2, and even Series S lag behind the 8th Gen refreshes is in the ability to put out native high pixel counts.

Pretty much anything modern though, would struggle on these 8th gen platforms. Like Steam Deck runs something like Starfield "okay", albeit at a very low resolution, but I don't think the 8th Generation consoles would do as well when you compare them to comparable PC's (say a Bulldozer + RX 580 build) that struggles to get a constant 30fps at any resolution (mostly because of the CPU bottleneck.) 

And this makes sense. The mid-gen refreshes were designed to play the same exact games as the original 8th Gen twins, but at higher image quality. They weren't designed to scale well with more modern titles than that, which are designed for platforms that accelerate some of the more modern features.

All evidence points clearly towards the Switch 2 being more capable than PS4 Pro with or without DLSS. Switch 2 is running PS5 versions of games, which yes may not be end all be all, but when you combine it with the other things we've been seeing with Switch 2, it's clearly it's noticeable more capable than a PS4 Pro. PS4 Pro was never capable of 120fps and it was almost non-existent to see native 4k games run on it while for Switch 2 we have multiple games confirmed with 4k resolutions (Prime 4, Yakuza 0, ect..) and as you mentioned the Switch 2 already has a better CPU & RAM, which is already a huge part of the processing power of the system, and likely has a better GPU as well based on the leaks.

It's pretty annoying that Digital Foundry is spreading their misinformed opinion around cause now people are going to believe the bad opinion that the Switch 2 is PS4 level when all evidence has pointed otherwise. It's especially bad that digital foundry is saying this cause they're the go to guys when it comes to the technical aspect side of games/consoles, when they say stuff like this people are gonna run away and believe it even though their opinion is wrong. They were also the same ones to say they didn't think the Switch 2 will be as powerful as a Steam Deck or PS4 which is clearly wrong based on everything we're seeing, neither of those consoles are powerful enough to support 120fps. Digital Foundry's opinion is just wrong.

You shouldn't lump in analysis for existing material with pure predictions. With all their mistakes, the Digital Foundry crew have a deeper understanding to the footage available than your average Nitendo fan who can't tell the difference between high resolution and a sharpening filter. Arguing otherwise is foolish.

Cyberpunk and Street Fighter 6 are rendered in much lower native resolution than PS4 Pro's versions. And the settings are also closer to the PS4 version than PS5 according to DF. DLSS and the slight difference in settings don't explain the massive native resolution gap. 1st party content comparison is pointless, because we don't know the actual workload of these games or how they would run on non-Nintendo platforms.

PS4 Pro's GPU is obviously more powerful than Switch 2 for rasterization, and the difference is likely big. Another PS4 Pro advantage is memory bandwidth (more than twice faster). Switch 2's advantages are the storage system, CPU, RAM capacity, RT, and features. So depending on how these games/modes are designed and factors like optimization, some games/modes will look better on the PS4 Pro, and others will favor the Switch 2.

To the naked eyed though, the Switch 2 may generally look and play better because it'll target much lower native resolutions, and DLSS will take care of the final image clarity.

Switch 2 vs base PS4/XBO should be kinda like Switch 1 vs PS3/360; not a huge leap, but noticeably newer effects and techniques, and ports of stuff that would have to be butchered to work on the older systems.

PS4 Pro should have the edge in terms of raw bandwidth and throughput, so some multiplats might be higher res on it, but on the other hand, the Jaguar was a poor CPU even by 2013 standards, and Switch 2 will likely have significantly more available RAM, so it should vary on a game by game basis.

Last gen games may push more pixels on PS4 Pro, but games that are CPU or RAM bound should fare better on Switch 2.

There is a point where "better at rasterization" becomes less interesting. 

Almost all real-time rendering workloads going forward are going to be hybrid workloads with  rasterized and ray traced components to the pipeline. 

Next generation we are also going to see a lot more neural rendering (beyond upscaling/ray reconstruction) too.

It also isn't universally true anyway that outside of raytracing and DLSS the Switch 2 doesnt have advantages in the GPU. For example, the PS4 Pro's GPU (based on GCN 2.0) doesn't support mesh shading while Ampere/RDNA 2 do. So a game like Alan Wake 2 likely would have to have significant compromises to work on the PS4 Pro in the same way an RX 570 struggles to run that game, but Switch 2 (like an RTX 2050) likely won't have those issues, if there were a port. 

"Rasterization", as people use the term (rather than the specific step), is really many different accelerated pipelines and not a single thing.

Yeah, that's a good point about modern games - PS4 Pro has GPU equivalent of heavily downclocked RX 580 (around 68%), which makes it around 30-40% faster in 8th gen titles, and even in cross-gen titles like CP2077, than SW2 equivalent, but GCN4 (from which PS4 Pro borrows some tech) is brought to knees in new titles like Alan Wake.

So while in games that are low/no effort ports based on last gen tech SW2 might not be up there with PS4 Pro, newer games and enhanced ports will certainly benefit from newer architecture, more RAM and better CPU.

And then there's DLSS...