It's quite small possibility. Switch pro would have been more for the  enthusiast market and with oled 449$ would have actually been a great price. I mean we have the same situation again with Nintendo Nickle and diming by making the switch 2 a lcd screen .

If T239 reports are correct, it looks to be PS4 Pro level in terms of raw processing power, but on par with the 9th gen consoles in terms of RAM and memory speeds (which is a big leg up given loading times being a big selling point for 9th gen) and with the latest bells and whistles from Nvidia like DLSS and real-time raytracing.

In essence, while on paper you're looking at PS4 Pro specs, I wouldn't be surprised if it performed on par in many cases with the Series S in real-world testing with DLSS enabled and definitely on par with the other 9th gen consoles in terms of loading times

I think the switch 2 will do alright performance wise. It will be like a ps5 and in 8 years be the best selling console and people will complain about graphics like now etc.

You aren't worried about the series s having 224 gbps memory bandwidth compared to a max of 102 gbps for the t239?  

Also where are you getting loading will be just as fast for the switch 2?  I'm not aware of anything remotely as fast as M2 storage and there is a zero percent chance the switch 2 uses M2.  Way too expensive and way too hot.  

The ps5 read speed via M2 is 5,500 mbps, the fastest SD I'm aware of is going to top out at 300 mbps.... not even in the same ballpark.  And M2, as mentioned earlier, runs super hot.  It requires a heatplate with PC builds.  

Storage is my biggest concern for the switch 2.  Not sure how carts will handle modern big games from both a size and speed perspective.  Rebirth is 150 gb....   

I think you are confused with memory bus speeds, which have nothing to do with loading of games.  And isn't as important as memory bandwidth.  Right now the switch 2 is tracking half the memory bandwidth of the series s and about 1/4 of the ps5.  And about 1/6 of a 4070 and about 1/10 of a 4090.  

The difference between load times for an NVME drive and much slower SATA SSDs (that are rated around the 300 MBps mark you mentioned) are minimal when it comes to most games.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2116-storage-speed-game-loading/ 

My guess though is the Switch 2 will have UFS and they'll use slower proprietary carts with mandatory installs for certain, large asset, titles.

UFS 3.0 should get near NVME PCI-E 3.0 speeds and it is designed for mobile platforms, so the heating issue is somewhat resolved. With UFS 4.0 being the new standard, prices shouldn't be too bad either.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Flash_Storage

There is also the matter that the Switch 2 titles will have much smaller assets to load. 

I'm surprised loading is considered minimal.  The difference in loading on the ps4 (ssd) and ps5 is stark.  But I agree ssd load speeds are not a deal breaker.  My concern is the cost of UFS carts, I expect poor third party support to avoid costs.  Like digital only or large parts of the game require downloads.  I don't see third party taking the hit on cart costs.

First party games don't concern me at all.  Assets will be much smaller and will play/look stunning on a 2050.  

I mean even in SSD-heavy titles like RDR2 the difference between a SATA SSD and a top of the line NVME is a few seconds. 

The load times between the PS4 and PS5 probably have more to do with the CPU than the difference in SSD speeds.

I wasn't thinking Nintendo will use UFS carts. They'll probably use something much slower and have 256 GB - 512 GB of UFS internal storage. The carts are just non-digital ways to transfer copies of the game faster than downloading, but not fast enough to play directly from for the most ambitious titles.

Fair points.  CPU could be the difference.  My computer has M2 and all games tested load within seconds.

Transfer between cart and internal sounds likely.  I'm not a fan, but I'm also not the target audience.  I'm guessing Nintendo games will be 20 to 30 gb, so I'll be good with internal for the games I plan on buying.  

You're making the mistake that I just cited, which is that you are comparing the two consoles when it comes to raw performance bandwidth. Someone else already covered the SSD argument so I won't relitigate it, but the point I was making wasn't that the Switch 2 is just as powerful as the Series S, but rather that

1) its memory and processing requirements are somewhat lower than the Series S (optimized for 1080p rather than 1440p)

2) it has better graphical processing techniques (courtesy of Nvidia_ and runs on ARM (which is better optimized for low-power and performance applications)

3) its CPU is built on a newer process (one gen newer than the other Gen9 consoles), which coupled with the aformentioned point 2 means that the CPU power between the two should effectively be the same for their respective performance targets

Which ultimately means that the difference between them would be very small in the real-world

Also as to the point about storage, the switch cartridge system is based on NAND flash, which means that they're essentially modified SD cards, which can go up to 1 TB nowadays. The real reason that the Switch cartridges were limited in terms of storage simply came down to the fact that Nintendo never saw enough demand to manufacture bigger ones

I don't own a series s, but I would be shocked if games target 1440p.  I would guess it renders at 900p to 1080p, same as the switch.   Heck most ps5 games are 1440p rendered in performance mode.  Upscaling isn't new.  All consoles use it.  Upscaling has been a thing since the 360 and ps3.  

For some reason people seem to think consoles are wasting resources with native resolution at 1440p and 4k....  um Alan wake 2 on the ps5 is 1270p on quality mode and sub 1080p in performance mode.  Only PC renders native resolutions.  

Time will tell, but I think people are grossly underestimating memory bandwidth.  102 gbps max is rough.  Especially at higher than 30 fps.