A significant portion of users only put emphasis on the GPU/RAM part while neglecting the CPU side of the Switch 2.

There's a reason why games like Madden NFL 26, Borderlands 4, Sparking Zero and many more upcoming games will run at 30fps (with dips) on Switch 2 even if the resolution and graphical details are reduced compared to PS5/Xbox Series.

That's the same reason why PS4 Pro didn't offered a 60fps option for most of the games compared to base PS4.

Proven wrong how?  Diminishing returns, at least for me, implies negligible difference.  Like 1440p to 4k is diminishing returns because it looks virtually identical.  60 to 120 absolutely has impact.  It isn't negligible.  RE4 Remake is one of my favorite games.  I played it back to back on the PC vs ps5.  120 fps vs 60 fps, both with a gamepad.  At 60 fps my a accuracy was 72%, at 120 fps I hit around 80%...  I don't see that as negligible. 

"But objectively the average gamer does in fact benefit above 60 fps."

I don't see how the above statement has been proven largely wrong when there is a statistical difference....  and that was the first article I found with putting in little effort.  Other articles exist....  gamers do benefit from fps above 60 fps.

Yep the CPU is turning out to be the bottleneck for the Switch 2 in quick ports (which let's be honest, are the majority with mass layoffs industry-wide.) 

I think Nintendo could mitigate this if they somehow free up a reserved CPU core, and fix VRR. Getting games to 40-45fps would make a big difference, even if they can't hit a solid 60fps.

Yeah stuff like Mario Kart World, DK Bananza, TOTK/BOTW Remasters, etc all have their roots in Switch 1 era tech, so they're not really showcases of what the hardware's capable of.

We're still waiting on that first party showcase title, something like say Luigi's Mansion on GC, Mario Galaxy on Wii, Mario Kart 8 on Wii U, etc.

Diminishing returns means "proportionally smaller profits or benefits derived from something as more money or energy is invested in it."

Just to again contextualise the discussion you isaid that someone else objectively benefitted from 120fps whilst saying diminishing returns did not apply to high frame rate.

I'll add a correction on my side, I got the QoE and Performance graphs confused. The performance graph plateaus at 60 fps and QoL at 90-120. Similar to resolution, these results are very contextual to a specific experience/set up. I think there's clearly demonstrable benefit to some portion of gamers above 60 but that's also where diminishing returns really kicks in too. 

I done the lazy thing and just grabbed chatgpt to explore the topic

• Claypool & Claypool (2006): Clear subjective QoE benefits up to 60 fps, but plateauing beyond. Many participants could not consistently distinguish 85–100 fps from 60 fps in enjoyment terms.

• Sony Interactive Entertainment Research (2019, PS5 dev white papers): While not peer-reviewed, testing showed higher perceived smoothness and responsiveness at 120 Hz in action and VR titles, but only sensitive players (hardcore FPS fans, competitive gamers) consistently rated 120 fps as more enjoyable.

• Academic reviews of gaming QoE (e.g. Claypool 2023 CHI, ITU-T G.1032): Above 60 fps, frame-time stability matters more than the raw frame count. 120 fps is perceived as “smoother” mainly when motion is fast and screen latency is low.

• eSports / HCI studies (CS:GO, Overwatch, Valorant community tests):

  • Performance (accuracy, reaction time) improves slightly from 60 → 120 → 240 fps.

  • Enjoyment/QoE: Most casual players don’t rate 120 fps as more fun than 60 fps, but competitive players often do, especially in twitch genres (FPS, racing)."

This could be one to watch; Shinen have a long track record of pushing Nintendo hardware, and the fact the original already runs at 60fps on Switch 1 means it could be a good testbed for stuff like 120fps or raytracing potentially

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/465501/the-touryst-deluxe-announced-for-switch-2/

That games has very, very low system requirements and even runs on PS5 at native 8K/60 fps (downsampled to 4K/60fps, making it effectively DSR), or native 4K/120fps...so, yeah, if they want, they can go crazy with it.

Yeah that's the interesting part, they have a lot of room to stretch the system's legs, and Shinen usually go the extra mile, like when they brought FAST Racing Neo to Switch 1 as FAST RMX and completely overhauled the lighting instead of just boosting the resolution like most Wii U ports.

Yeah, given that, apparently, they rewrote the engine for PS5 to take advantage of it's low level API, it's probably fair to assume they will go to the metal with NS2 as well.

I must be super sensitive because for me 120 fps is every bit as big of jump over 60 as 60 is over 30.  I've tested it out in a few games like RE4 where it tracks accuracy.  I get rather large gains.  When games like TLoU and oddly TTW have select areas that run poorly, I noticed immediately and confirmed via software that displays fps.  In both games there was an area that dropped to lows 80s, caught the drop immediately, stands out like a sore thumb.  

I'll leave my prediction, consoles will start offering more and more higher fps...  it will become a thing.  

Perhaps once you game a long time at 120 fps, you get used to it and 60 fps just seems sluggish.  Like a conditioning aspect.  With the exception of Nintendo and a hand full of PC games (souls, hades)  I have not played any games that didn't average 100+ fps in 2 years.