Intergrade is still essentially a PS4 game, so although It doesn't stand out as an especially meaningful PS5 vs S2 comparison its just reminder that all PS4's best looking games including God of War Ragnarok/TLOU2 etc Switch 2 has the capacity punch above. Which is exciting for when Nintendo's meaty first party efforts come through.

All chipsets designed for portable hardware like handheld consoles and laptops target efficient power profiles, there is nothing new in the Switch 2 in that regard. You have a Samsung 8Nm fabrication process which is more like 10Nm in reality and you have only 20Wh to use. Some of the newer PC based handheld consoles using Z2 extreme also have power efficient profiles but they use a 4Nm fabrication process and have up to about 99Wh for battery on the largest battery models. A cheap fabrication process and a low capacity battery do not allow for miracle performance levels. Surely your argument if anything shows Nintendo are best advised to clock low on the Switch 2 to get maximum battery life so if anything reinforces my believe about the real performance level of the Switch 2. The efficiency curve for performance per watt is set in the design, it would have been designed from the ground up to be efficient at its stock frequencies and more power would only be wasted and achieve poor performance levels for the increased frequencies/wattage so for these types of designs reducing power will have a noticeable drop in performance just like if you set your laptop to a 83% performance level you don't suddenly get twice as long out of the battery that isn't how it works. These are already power optimised designs. Yes you can throw more power at them and achieve some small performance gains but they are not designed this way.  The Switch 2 isn't capable of delivering superior power efficiency with a dated fabrication process and small capacity battery.

The power efficiency of chips is completely linked to the fabrication process, yes other factors might have a small element in power efficiency but ultimately the fabrication process dictates power efficiency. Of course in the final designs other parts of the design are a huge factor too like the screen, amount of memory, wifi chip etc but you can't get away from power efficiency being linked to the fabrication process. So the idea that a dated effectively 10Nm fabrication process can compete with a 4Nm fabrication process is not realistic for power efficiency.

I'm personally quite confident that the Switch 2 will be achieving a sub 1 Teraflop performance level in portable gaming to achieve around 2 hours but the final numbers will probably be revealed in a month or so. Ultimately if Cyberpunk has a native resolution as low as 360p this surely is an indicator of GPU power level available. Lets not forget the Deep Learning Super Sampling is there to upscale amazingly and the games will already be optimised so they work exceptionally well with that upscaling technology. Hence less artifacts than doing the same on PC. It's a very clever design that doesn't need to be that powerful. Yes if Nintendo had coughed up for a better fabrication process which could have had much longer battery runtime for the same performance level but they didn't. It is what it is. 

Lets not forget either that with this cheaper fabrication comes more heat and therefore cooling requirements which is another reason to clock low which they appear to have done according to that video. Nintendo designs very reliable hardware generally and doesn't want to cough up for warranty claims if they can. They are completely focused on margins and profit.

Not really. The GA107 is designed to optimally work in the 30W - 115W range. No product that uses it targets <30W, and there is no reason to believe it would work optimally below its used range. 

Meanwhile the T239 is specifically designed with the Switch 2 in mind, and likely designed with 3W-20W being the power target. 

This is false because, again, process node isn't the only thing that matters. SOC architecture matters too. Power-efficiency isn't a univariate function of only process-node. There are other variables. I already showed you a real-world example of how you can nearly halve the power-consumption and still retain 83% of the performance. There is no reason or need to compare to laptops, when we have an example of a handheld system that targets sub-15W power-usage, where this is true. 

I already addressed the rest of this, but @bolded. This isn't necessarily the case because DLSS has its own performance penalty/latency. It is possible that the Switch 2 could have targeted something like 540p - 720p native in handheld mode (roughly Steam Deck performance), but the end-result would be worse. Then the decision would be performance mode, ultra-performance mode DLSS, or some bespoke variable internal resolution between the two. The fact that the Switch 2 goes as low as ultra-performance DLSS isn't evidence that it would have a very low native-resolution without DLSS. It's just evidence that when using DLSS sometimes ultra-performance mode is required to get the target frame-rate. 

So based on what I saw in the hardware leal video, in terms of raw power the Switch 2 in docked mode is right in between a PS4 & PS5 in power, so maybe slightly above PS4 Pro level.

While in handheld mode, it seems like the Switch 2 is slightly more capable than a base PS4.

However, the Switch 2 should be better off cause of DLSS and the Series S being a more underpowered version puts the Switch 2 closer to receiving next gen ports since the gap isn't as large this time around.

Am I correct with this?

Pretty much with the caveat that the PS4 Pro (and Xbox One X) are better than the Switch 2 and Series S when it comes to raw resolution output/pixel count for the games they can run in common with the Switch 2/Series S. Certain 8th generation and cross-gen titles run at higher native resolutions than the Switch 2 (especially) and Series S (even) are capable of. 

On the other hand, there are games that the Series S and Switch 2 can run that the PS4 Pro (and One X) probably would struggle to run. 

Things like this makes these linear comparisons hard. 

No, not really right in between PS4 and PS5.

PS5 is some 4-4.5x faster than SW2 docked, which is quite a bit more than by how much SW2 docked beats PS4, so for it to sit right in between PS4 and PS5 it would need to be twice as fast as it is now.

PS4 Pro is above SW2 docked, speaking of raw power, so in titles that are using 8th gen tech, PS4 Pro has the edge...technically speaking.

That said, as @sc94597 pointed out, 9th gen games that utilize tech found in newer GPU architectures, would really bring 8th gen consoles to their knees, while running fine on SW2, so yeah, technically speaking, ports are very viable.

Think of it this way - currently, something that is found near the bottom of PC GPU benchmarks charts, 3060 12GB (which is some 4x SW2 docked), is as far away from 4090 as SW2 docked is to PS5...yet it is able to run all modern games without a problem, only with lower settings and resolution.

I wouldn't compare Switch 2 to PS4 Pro but it's closer to PS4 base then it is PS5 in raw power. It's feature set though is way more modern and aligned closer to the PS5 generation of hardware and in some ways beyond (DLSS)...

I think the only meaningful deduction is that original games can look even greater than anything we saw on PS4, able to match PS4 Pro in resolution output (often with DLSS) and allowing better performance at lower resolutions. We will see more 60fps Switch 2 games at similar levels of detail of PS4 games.  Modern ports will be easier and produce higher quality than a last gen machines (PS4/X1), but still typically be a generation behind in feature set (no RT GI), low end texture detail while being locked to 720-1080p/30fps. Image quality maybe similar or better to Series S and they will require proper porting window (4-6months) unless a separate team is handling it.

In smaller scope games where the CPU is not taxed and the only bottle neck is RAM/GPU, it may feel closer to PS5 (at 1080p) and be easy for simultaneous launches.

Digital Foundry dropped a new video.

Biggest kicker is the 3GB of Ram for the OS.
Which should mean a much smoother OS/Store front... Which was always one of the biggest headaches in using the OG Switch. Yay.

But it also means the Switch 2 will be Ram limited with only 9GB available for games, for comparison the Xbox Series S has 8.2GB available for games.

Neither are ideal.

But compared to the OG Switch is still a 3x increase for games.

68GB/s of bandwidth in handheld will limit fillrate for 1080P, so DLSS will be used as a crutch I imagine with many developers.

So the leaked core clocks are confirmed. 

So much for the 800 GFLOPs handheld mode speculation, lol. 

Wonder if we'll ever see the 1.4 GHz GPU clock mode be allowed/enabled. Regardless, would be fun to see Switch 2 overclocking like with Switch 1 once the console is moddable. 

Bummer on the CPU and memory allocations for the OS, but maybe Nintendo will free up resources as time goes on.

Was expecting 2GB max for OS allocation given how little Switch 1 used. Seems like their chat/networking features are more resource intensive than I would have thought.

Edit: 

It is becoming clear that the biggest bottlenecks are probably going to be the CPU, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth, in that order. Mostly because bandwidth can be mitigated by DLSS, capacity can be mitigated with lower resolution textures and lower quality RT, but the CPU doesn't really have much to scale unless you can off-load CPU heavy tasks on the GPU or you have some sort of dynamic power management where the CPU can clock higher at certain points but with the cost of GPU power-consumption (and performance.) 

How do you guys feel about the potential of game chat taking away more RAM from the Switch's 2 total RAM? Do you guys think its worth it for game chat or would you rather have that allocated towards the games?

Me personally while I think on system voice chat is neccesary, I don't think the screen sharing and everything else is worth taking that much RAM.
I feel like for the people want to screen share so bad, make the consumer find a way to do it through discord or another method, it ain't worth taking that RAM away from the games especially when I don't see a ton of people using it.