The main reason that is the case is because the first third of this generation was mainly a cross-platform period. Also the PS5 has its bespoke Geometry Shader engine that requires a bit of extra work to implement. 

As more fully dedicated current-generation games release though, one should expect it to pop up more. 

But mesh-shading isn't the only new feature anyway. Mandatory RTGI  would be hard to implement on these old architectures in a performant way. Switch 2 and Series S have (or will in a month, in Switch 2's case) games with it though. 

Games like Indiana Jones and the Great Circle and Star Wars Outlaws are unplayable on GCN without workarounds that basically remove their lighting systems and replace them with nothing. 

No offense, but you didn't actually address the post that was written, and just re-asserted your position. 

It's no more cherry-picking to identify the significant ways in which the Switch 2 is exceeding the last generation platforms in Cyberpunk 2077 than it is to identify the ways in which it isn't (especially as the prior are more numerous, and cumulatively significant, than the latter.) 

Digital Foundry didn't even make the hard statement you are suggesting they did anyway. Richard was very measured in his statement, and contextualized it pretty well, with a healthy degree of uncertainty. It never was a general statement of the relative performance of the Switch 2 compared to the PS4 and PS4 Pro nor even of Cyberpunk 2077 but how it measured up in a particular area (internal resolution.) 

This is the language used, 

[After making the internal resolution comparison] "I guess you can say that Switch 2 falls possibly in between PS4 and Pro, though ideally I'd like more data here. And of course, some idea of how much computational load DLSS is putting on the Switch 2's GPU, which is going to be far less with the TAA solutions used by the PlayStation consoles"

And again, I would like to mention that there are cross-platform titles (including, native resolution, this one) where the PS4 Pro and One X have higher internal resolution than the Series S. So, any argument that depends solely on internal resolution here likely also would have to apply to the relative difference between Pro/One X and Series S. 

Not sure what to tell you, the S2 is ps4/pro tier hardware.  DF does call that out, imo, quite clearly.  Plus other tech sites have it in that same tier as well.  You do cherry pick data.  You don't mention the significant hit to NPC density or how DF talks about the weakness of the CPU.  DF has the S2 on the ps4 tier.  

Also I have a Switch, S2, ps3, ps4, ps5, 3050. 4070, 5070ti and 4090.  After 50+ hours on the S2, I know where it sits...  the ps4/pro tier.  

Elden Ring on the ps4 is something like 900p/30fps...  the ps5 around 1800p/60fps.  The S2 is targeting 1080/30fps....  ps4 tier.  

I get it electronics is complicated. I get the S2 can do things the ps4 can't, but those things are minor and will not result in final moving picture fidelity that significantly looks above the ps4/pro.  The S2 is ps4 tier.

Not sure what to tell you, the S2 is ps4/pro tier hardware.  DF does call that out, imo, quite clearly.  Plus other tech sites have it in that same tier as well.  You do cherry pick data.  You don't mention the significant hit to NPC density or how DF talks about the weakness of the CPU.  DF has the S2 on the ps4 tier.  

Also I have a Switch, S2, ps3, ps4, ps5, 3050. 4070, 5070ti and 4090.  After 50+ hours on the S2, I know where it sits...  the ps4/pro tier.  

Elden Ring on the ps4 is something like 900p/30fps...  the ps5 around 1800p/60fps.  The S2 is targeting 1080/30fps....  ps4 tier.  

I get it electronics is complicated. I get the S2 can do things the ps4 can't, but those things are minor and will not result in final moving picture fidelity that significantly looks above the ps4/pro.  The S2 is ps4 tier.

Not sure what to tell you, the S2 is ps4/pro tier hardware.  DF does call that out, imo, quite clearly.  Plus other tech sites have it in that same tier as well.  You do cherry pick data.  You don't mention the significant hit to NPC density or how DF talks about the weakness of the CPU.  DF has the S2 on the ps4 tier.  

Also I have a Switch, S2, ps3, ps4, ps5, 3050. 4070, 5070ti and 4090.  After 50+ hours on the S2, I know where it sits...  the ps4/pro tier.  

Elden Ring on the ps4 is something like 900p/30fps...  the ps5 around 1800p/60fps.  The S2 is targeting 1080/30fps....  ps4 tier.  

I get it electronics is complicated. I get the S2 can do things the ps4 can't, but those things are minor and will not result in final moving picture fidelity that significantly looks above the ps4/pro.  The S2 is ps4 tier.

I wouldn't call say textures streaming like 30 seconds late on PS4/Pro in Cyberpunk leaving scenes looking completely unfinished vs no such issue on Switch 2 a "minor" difference, that's a pretty major one.

The texture quality difference once they do load in is also pretty noticeable.

There's also just the fact that in a game that leans on hardware raytracing, it simply won't work on PS4/Pro but it can on Switch 2.

It depends on how broad you want to apply the term "tier" really. Like, PS2 and Xbox/Gamecube can be said to be in the same power tier, yet the latter can pull off stuff the former simply can't.

Switch 2 is definitely closer to PS4 than PS5 in raw pixel pushing power, but it can still exceed last gen significantly in certain areas.

Again you're just reasserting your opinion without supporting it or addressing what was written. I already know you disagree, no point in disagreeing again, but this time harder. 

I also have a Switch 2 (and Switch), a PS5 Pro (and PS5), RTX 5090 (RTX 4090, RTX 5060, RTX 3080ti, and literally dozens of other Nvidia GPU's I use for deep-learning inference, but also tinker with for gaming), a PS4 Pro, Series X, etc. I would put the Switch 2 a half-tier below the Series S, but capable of playing the same set of titles as the Series S at playable resolutions and bare minimum (30fps) frame-rates. The PS4 Pro is also a half-tier below it if we are just comparing 8th Generation rasterization capabilities, but not always capable of playing the same games. My estimation on this has nothing to do with owning dozens of pieces of hardware, but actually thinking about what the respective hardware is capable of and what it means to support features in software on one platform that have been offloaded to dedicated hardware on another. 

Being able to actually run modern 9th Generation games with 9th Generation features versus not being able to is not minor. If one had a goal to port Alan Wake 2 or Indiana Jones to Switch 2 or PS4 Pro (hell, even if we somehow gave everyone an SSD in their Pro), it is clear which would be an easier task and for which platform it would require writing performance-killing software-based compilers or rebuilding lighting/mesh systems that might not even work at the end of the day. That is far more significant of an issue to deal with than saying, "Oh there is a CPU bottleneck? Do we want to optimize for a 40fps mode, lock it to 30fps, or do both?" 

And the whole context of Digital Foundry's statements are that they were disagreeing with a developer about a very subjective "it lies here" heuristic, so no not everyone agrees "PS4/Pro level." The context of much of this discussion (which Digital Foundry was using as a framing) was their response to this Virtous quote (a quote which isn't disagreeing much with what some other developers are saying too):

In terms of raw console performance, do you agree that the Switch 2 is closer to the Xbox Series S than it is to the PlayStation 4, making it easier for developers to port their current-gen games to the hardware?

Eoin: GPU-wise, the Switch 2 performs slightly below the Series S; this difference is more noticeable in handheld mode. However, the Series S does not support technologies like DLSS, which the Switch 2 does. This makes the GPU capabilities of the two consoles comparable overall.

CPU-wise, there is a clearer distinction between the two consoles. The Switch 2 is closer to the PlayStation (PS) 4 in this respect, having a CPU just a bit more powerful than the PS4’s. Since most games tend to be more GPU-bound than CPU-bound when well optimized, the impact of this difference largely depends on the specific game and its target frame rate. Any game shipping at 60 FPS on the Series S should easily port to the Switch 2. Likewise, a 30 FPS Series S game that’s GPU-bound should also port well. Games with complex physics, animations, or other CPU-intensive elements might incur additional challenges in reaching 30 or 60 FPS or require extra optimization during porting.

Umm, so are you.  You are saying the same things over and I already made it clear I don't agree.  S2 is ps4 tier like DF said and a few other sites. I don't know what to tell you.  I've played MKW and DK, they both look like ps4 games.  Powerwise the S2 is a ps4 with a handful of tricks.  And the differences are minor.  You think if you toss up a pic of ps4 cyber and S2 casual gamers would see a difference?

And half tiers, frankly, seems silly.  It almost comes off as though people think a ps4 that fits in one's pocket is an insult, for some odd reason.  Personally I find it to be a compliment, given I remember where we came from with the OG GB.

At the end of the day is the S2 is 30% above the ps4 and the ps5 is 600%....  what tier is the S2 on?  Ps4/pro.

And with that many GPUs you should know as well as I do, raw power makes up for fancy new chipsets.  Would you trade your 3080ti for a 5060?  The 5060 has the new fancy bells and whistles.  Personally I'd keep the 3080ti, older chipset but has the raw power to easily overtake the 5060.  Raw power is being underrated in this discussion.  

So usually when one forms an argument one makes a main point, and then supports that main point with supporting evidence or reasoning. I have been doing the latter as well as the prior (even if I am restating some of the main points from post to post.) I've also addressed the points you were making. What I keep bringing up is that you're refusing to even address the points I am making, especially when relating to the 9th Generation feature-sets that make a lot of current-generation only titles impractical to impossible on a PS4 Pro let alone a base PS4, but aren't impossible or impractical on a Switch 2.

Your main support is (often an overextrapolation of what) "DF said",  which is not a very strong support for your any claim, let alone a bold one like "Switch 2 is PS4 tier."

As to your analogy, both the RTX 5060 and 3080ti support the same base APIs and rendering pipelines and therefore the same set of games, so I don't think your analogy quite fits. A better comparison would be something like a GTX 1080ti and an RTX 3050. The 1080ti is +35% the raw performance of a RTX 3050, but I can guarantee you that the RTX 3050 is going to support more and more games that the GTX 1080ti won't support as time goes on. When you account for DLSS the RTX 3050 is often a better buy even for games that they both do support. An RTX 3050 can already play games the GTX 1080ti can't. 

This is where I make a point that we if we do away with half-tiers, then we need to start considering what generations (from a hardware perspective) a platform lies by its capacity to play more of the same games without fundamentally changing the rendering pipeline. The Switch 2 can play all 8th generation titles, and nearly all 9th Generation titles (with the exception of CPU bound titles that perform poorly on other 9th Generation hardware.) The PS4 (and Pro) can't. It's not cherry-picking to say that a game like Star Wars Outlaws (even if it releases barely playable) is possible on Switch 2 in a way it's not on a PS4 Pro. 

Tiers is about performance; fps, resolution, lighting, etc.