That's the thing, it doesn't even make sense from the "Nintendo uses cheap parts!" ... OK so why use a much larger, more complex 12SM chip with more graphics cores on it when you could have gotten the same result from 8SMs and fewer graphics cores. 

It's added cost for no real benefit. 

Now tell me again how this fits in to how Nintendo works? 

The other problem with Samsung's 8nm process is I believe it's a dead end process. From what I've read it's not compatible with their 4nm/5nm processes, so how is Nintendo supposed to make a Switch 2 with better battery or Switch 2 Lite? I'm not sure they could. Beyond that, Nvidia has purchased no other Samsung process lines either. They have purchased TSMC 3nm, which would naturally scale well from TSMC 5nm (4N), so there you would have a clear cut blue print for Switch 2 + later on Switch 2 Lite and Switch 2 Better Battery Life model. 

I can't wait till this $400 Nintendo handheld is announced and we can stop the speculation. It will be a 2050, roughly, imho.

Yes it's not worth keep arguing about this. we will get info soon but just like for the past Nintendo consoles. Nintendo fans saying it doesn't make sense then specs come out and they are the lowest end of predictions every time.

Yeah low to medium TDP RTX 2050/3050 laptop level of performance fits well with what we know.

That'll allow the Switch 2 to play demanding new AAA titles at 1080p 30fps after being upscaled with DLSS with Series S-ish settings in docked mode.

Will also give Nintendo's first party developers plenty of leeway for decent fidelity levels for their stylized titles.

First generation since the GameCube where pretty much any title that releases on other platforms likely can get an easy Nintendo port too.

A 2050 architecture wise blows the crap out of a PS4.

A 2050 can run a game like Alan Wake II with DLSS on reasonably well. Low settings on modern PC games are more like what medium settings used to be, developers optimize heavily to make sure people running on low get a good experience. It isn't like how things used to be maybe 15-20 years ago. 

Then throw in developer optimization the Switch 2 will have benefit of, which will optimize performance even moreso, I mean I'd take that kind of performance in a mobile device that also plays Nintendo games any day of the week. 

Halo Infinite runs low settings, 30 fps at 1080p on my 3050.  Looks pretty god awful.  I think you are grossly overestimating what a 2050 can do.  

The minimum for AW2 is a 2060....  and minimum isn't a pretty experience in the PC world.  

Hm, something is up with your 3050 system. A 2050/3050 laptop should get about 50fps at low settings in Halo Infinite at 1080p. 30fps is roughly what these GPU's achieve at high/ultra settings. 

https://youtu.be/HYTHK3VTxIs?si=SS2n-pc3tzQo1BCP

A 3050 Desktop should be in the high 90's -110's at low settings in Halo Infinite.

AW2 also runs at 30-40fps low 1080p on low-TDP 2050/3050 laptops.  

Alan Wake II looks fine on even low settings. It's not 2002 anymore, "low" settings today are basically what medium settings used to be. 

The average gamer is not going to be able to tell a big difference there between Low and Medium. 

High settings today is what Ultra settings used to be and Ultra basically now is the ray tracing setting. Low honestly holds up pretty well even against the high settings. 

Complaining about this difference on a machine can throw into your pocket is peak first world problems, lol. Even side by side, I think if you took the labels off a lot of people wouldn't even people to tell the difference there between the first three settings. 

The average gamer that cares about third-party games already has ps5 or pc lol.

Here's another example of Alan Wake II at Low settings versus High (yes, High, no Medium even). 

The average person even the average core gamer being able to tell a difference here, lol, good luck. There was some shadow distortion on one shot but often in a game do you stop and look at a shadow, no one plays games that way. Otherwise the difference is laughably small. 

The fact is for modern games a developer can't just make different assets (models, textures, etc. etc.) for different game settings. It would balloon the development cost through the roof. It's not 1999 where you could do that with a team of 20 people. The "low" setting has to more or less run the same assets, textures, even non-RT lighting, it's too much of a pain in the ass to rework the textures, lighting, models like that in modern game development.