Series s games are trash because no one is putting in the time for optimisation.  All just quick ports

Not really, optimisation is only a small part of the problem. The console is just too weak for demanding games, and AMD took a long time to finally have a decent answer to Nvidia's DLSS, which wasn't an Xbox specific issue.

The console was trash. You only needed to pay a $100 more for a PS5 (at $400) with nearly twice the storage and far greater capabilities. But FSR4 may elevate it soon.

Series S running the game at low settings 40fps@720p or low settings 30fps@1080p and Switch 2 doing similar but @30fps variable 540p-1080p -> 1080p in Docked Mode; variable 360p-720p -> 720p in handheld sounds about right.

I don't think there will be a major difference in graphics settings other than maybe foliage/NPC density, and the "raw power" difference is largely washed out by the fact that Series S needs to have higher internal resolutions while still maintaining its targets. 

If say, Switch 2 averages around 720p, then that would mean it needs to be about 2.25 time weaker than Series S when docked (which it roughly is), and say averaging 540p in handheld it would need to be about 4 times weaker when in handheld (which it roughly is) assuming no other bottleneck and linear performance scaling. Of course the minimum and maximum loads don't necessarily linearly scale, but that is what the variable internal resolution would help with. 

Given we've seen similar with other demanding games, I don't think it is too much of a lift. Especially when Crimson Desert is less CPU-heavy than something like Oblivion Remastered.  

I remember people arguing that the Switch 2 wouldn't have performance of the PS4 (even docked) years before the console launched. I was one of the few on the thread at the time that argued it was entirely possible and even likely to have at least PS4 performance while docked, and likely somewhere between the Pro and the PS4. This was maybe 4 years ago.

Around the same time I also assumed it would be likely the console would have 12GB of RAM and would be semi-custom (moreso than the Switch 1). I did this by merely paying attention to Nvidia mobile technology and what was out at the time.

You can't satisfy everyone, but the Switch 2 hardware is exactly where I thought it would be. I don't understand the complaints. It's a generational leap above the original Switch in much the same vein that PS5 is to the PS4. In order to want something more powerful you'd have to ask for something that is significantly more expensive or you simply don't want the Switch concept at all.

Sometimes, it just feels like people like to complain.

Yeah honestly, I feel the Switch 2 delivers a good amount of bang for one's buck, considering its a portable platform that targeted $450.

It's certainly a massive leap over the Switch 1, and even has some notable advantages over PS4 like DLSS, raytracing, more RAM, fast I/O, and a better CPU.

It's not a cutting edge powerhouse, but realistically you were never gonna get that from a mass market price point.

I agree those who complain are haters or don't know much about hardware. Many just complain that the GPU is just Ampere architecture, but it clearly isn't based on a die shot and analysis. The only problem is 8nm manufacturing process for SOC, which can be easily improved next year with 5/4nm Samsung process, by increasing the price by another $50.

If we are looking at pure tech, the Switch 2 was more outdated at launch than the Switch was in 2017. However, diminishing returns is the new norm and the Switch 2 is being able to keep up with the PS5 a lot better than the Switch could keep up with the PS4. I am very pleased with it.

And clearly Nintendo made the right call by being conservative with the specs, which allows them a lot more in the ability to not raise prices. Thank God it only has 12 GB of RAM.

I feel like Switch 2's biggest victory tech wise is its ability to handle AAA PS5/XBS games much more comfortably and with a lot less compromise than Switch 1 handled AAA PS4/XBO titles.

It makes it feel like a more rounded platform in terms of playing a broad range of software to a higher standard.

Totally agree. I also think a lot of it is platform preference. Quite a few of those people who complain(ed) about S2 being too weak because it's not as powerful as a PS5 will be perfectly happy once a PS6 handheld releases (that'll also be less powerful than a PS5). Those same people will suddenly "get" that a portable console is restricted to a few watts of output. For many people the magic threshold for "good enough performance" to enjoy games will always be what their favorite platform provides, no matter what it is. Series S is too weak! But a PS6 handheld with the same performance is good enough, because it's a handheld. But the portability argument doesn't hold true for the Switch 2, which is simply too weak. This goes in all directions of course, even though some fanbases are clearly more vocal about performance. 

If you mean these 2022 threads... most of us expected raw performance in the ballpark of a base PS4 + DLSS benefits:

• https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/246729/nvidia-employee-acknowledges-tegra-239-soc-rumored-to-be-powering-switch-2/1/
• https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/246735/all-the-next-gen-nintendo-soc-likely-possibilities-published-by-nvidia/1/

The lowest expectation I've seen was Xbox One (S) performance + DLSS benefits.

But you seem to be the only one who expected 12 GB RAM, so kudos to you.
Most others expected either 8 GB or 16 GB RAM.