Probably not given that the game runs at 30fps and 40fps on the Rog Ally (depending on internal resolution) fine. Plus the Rog Ally has frame generation support, which has artifacts that aren't very noticeable in a game like this on a handheld screen imo. 

But the Switch 2 version seems to be running similar graphics settings and DLSS will probably give it a slightly better output than FSR does on the Rog Ally, even if the internal resolution is lower.  

I expect them to look and play quite similarly, to be honest, with the Switch 2 version being cleaner docked, mostly because of DLSS > FSR and the fact that both platforms (docked Switch 2 & Rog Ally Z1e) are similarly performant before upscaling.

The game looks and runs great on the Rog Ally, so not a big negative for the Switch 2 imo. 

I was just watching a digital foundry video where they are discussing Street Fighter 6 actually being 540p native docked with an upscale to 1080p and the new Metroid Prime actually being 1440p native upscaled to 4K yet earlier videos I'm sure said the higher resolutions were the native resolutions. It feels like native resolution is dropping a lot in more recent videos. Basically DLSS was so good they didn't realise it was being used. This is what I've said from the beginning is that the Switch 2 is punching above its weight due to DLSS rather than actually having the performance of being able to render these games at higher native resolutions. That shows that the implementation of DLSS is very well done and likely the assets were developed to work really well with DLSS, there are upscaling optimised games. I'm still super impressed with Switch 2 just in a different way I guess.

I was just thinking after seeing the cyberpunk 2077 performance on the Switch 2, it's odd that the $449 Switch 2 is better than the $500 Steam Deck 256 GB , yet is criticized as being too expensive.

Steam Deck 256gb LCD is $399 not $500. "Better" is very subjective. In games performance very likely more often than not, but the Steam Deck has access to the largest gaming library in existence and has a ton of features and uses that the Switch 2 does not.

I don't think $449 is too much for the Switch 2 but I also don't think it's really better value than a steam deck. They are very different products. One is a full PC in your hands.

Of course I checked and saw the actual price.
Yes, but most of them were $450-$550. It must be something like the MSPR for a graphics card.

I don't mean to sound like an economist on a gaming site like this
about the value of a product.The word excellent simply meant game performance.

Well, that is one game so far, which gets a lot of porting effort.

The Steam Deck can play thousands of games which either aren't on Switch or where a Switch 2 upgrade patch ain't sure.

F. e. God of War + Ragnarok, The Witcher 3, Resident Evil 2 - 4 Remake, Resident Evil 7 + Village, The Talos Principle 2, Deathloop, Wolfenstein 1 + 2, Doom + Doom Eternal, Horizon 1 + 2, Marvel Spider-Man 1 + MM + 2, Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart, A Plague Tale Requiem, Forza Horizon 4 + 5, Dark Souls 3, Death Stranding... 

In the Steam Store, the Steam Decks are always available for MSRP (or below). Free shipping included.

This is false.

The original Switch was much lower clocked due to battery life and thermals.

Running games in a closed console environment has the expectation that the hardware would be 100% utilized more often than not as software is designed to strictly target the hardware.

In an open platform like a Shield or PC, there is an expectation that the CPU or GPU utilization may be lower than 100% as the software is targeting the OS/API's rather than the hardware.

Nintendo also needed a cheap quick-to-market chip and the Tegra X1 fit that bill perfectly, Nintendo *could* have offered 50% more performance by using the Pascal variant, but I guess financials got in the way.

Nintendo didn't buy the Tegra X1 in the Switch as "hand me downs" - The Tegra X1 in the Switch HAD to be manufactured from scratch, nVidia didn't have a warehouse of these chips sitting around doing nothing.

So you basically just agreed with what I said (they use the same chip, and that is why you can compare clock rates), and then said "this is false." The chipset in the original Switch was not designed specifically for the original Switch, unlike the chipset in the Switch 2. It was designed for a wide range of systems (including the Nvidia Shield) and then repurposed for/inherited by the Switch with very minor modifications meant to fit its form-factor (reduced clocks being one.) This is characteristically different from the T239, which was built with the Switch 2 in mind from the very start and with its form factor under consideration throughout the whole development process. There is no other hardware with the T239, unlike the T210.

If the hardware for the Switch were designed specifically for it, there wouldn't be a discussion of "under-clocking" because there is nothing else to compare it against to say "it is under-clocked." It is appropriately clocked for its target hardware that it was specifically designed for. We see this in that with the T239 there really isn't an analogous chip to compare against. The closest thing to it is the T234, which is very different hardware with a different targeted form factor and purpose (edge compute for sensors vs. gaming.) 

The one part where you disagreed is the bolded. The bolded ignores the fact that the major cost for Nvidia (as the designer) isn't the cost of producing the chips but the R&D of designing the chips. Nvidia needs to recoup those R&D costs. So yes, it is a "hand me down." They were selling essentially more of a product they needed to recoup the R&D cost on that they already did the bulk of the design work for (that is money already spent) with other devices being considered in that work, and therefore they gave Nintendo a deal, rather than fully designing hardware from a less developed stage (and accruing more R&D costs.) If they were specifically designing the hardware for Nintendo they wouldn't likely provide them with the T210, but something more custom, even if similar. Nowhere did I suggest there was manufactured hardware already produced. You pulled that out of the aether. Nvidia's (being fabless) role in this process is as chip-designer not chip-manufacturer. It's the mature extant design that is handed down, not extant physical chips. 

You have twisted my statements to try and fit your narrative.

Nintendo didn't purchase the Tegra X1 as a "Hand me down". That's your false statement.

The Tegra X1 is not "Custom designed" for any form factor. nVidia made a chipset and threw it everywhere they could... Which is why it ended up in Tablets, HTPC's, Handheld and Automotive.
It's literally not custom designed for anything, it's a general purpose SoC with an emphasis on GPU capability.

nVidia literally every single year... Takes a chip, adjusts it's clockspeeds and sells it to a different market, form factor or price bracket, Tegra X1 is no different.
Nintendo had to make the decision to be conservative with clocks to keep TDP and Battery life within an acceptable "Worse case scenario".
nVidia had nothing to do with that clockspeed decision, that was Nintendo, which is why Switch consoles are capable of overclocking so well.

The cost of designing the chip was already done and dusted before the Tegra X1 even released.
The GPU is derived from their Desktop offerings, being Maxwell based.

nVidia then licensed the ARM cores from... Well. ARM.

What do you think happened? nVidia designed the CPU and GPU architectures from scratch? No. No. That didn't occur.

It is no more of a "hand me down" chip than what the Xbox Series X, Playstation 5 and Switch 2 has... They are all based on already developed CPU and GPU architectures.

nVidia, AMD and Intel build "libraries" which are blocks of semiconductors that they can line up with other libraries in order to expedite time-to-market chip development by partnering one library up with another.

This is no different than the Switch 2 SoC being based on another nVidia chip used for IoT, Cars and more.
It's based once again on ARM I.P and uses the PC Ampere GPU architecture... Again, this technology is several years old at this point.