I would argue the 2070 super is still a better card than the 4050. Architecture gains are used for more power and sometimes smart features, which you can calculate in a lot of tests. If the card has less performance than another card in those tests it's worse.

The difference in architecture doesn't mean much of you do not utilise the power of those cards. Better upscaling with DLSS 3 does help the 4050 though. Although keeping it locked to the 40 series might also be a marketing strategy since FSR is a lot more backwards compatible.

100% agreed.  I would take a 2070s over a 4050 all day.  Newer chipsets don't mean what people think it does.  Pure processing power is more important.  The S2 will have a modern chipset but not the muscles to touch the ps5.  Hence the S2 will be closer to the ps4.  

But hey, spot on.  

Heck halo infinite runs better on the One X than the Series S.....  

So why didn't NVidia make the Tegra X1 in 2005, if no progress in GPU technology was made between 2005 and 2015?

For that matter, why is the PS4 more powerful than the PS3, if technology doesn't advance over time?

The cold hard fact is that Switch is more capable than PS3. That's not an opinion, that's objective reality. We have the specs, and we can see how the games they share perform.

Nobody said progress wasn't made.  We are saying muscle is more important.

The ps3 was 256 ram, the ps4 was 8 gb....  32x increase.  

The ps3 was 20 (ish) gb/s while the ps4 was 176 gb/s....  almost a 10x increase. 

The muscle of the ps4 kills the ps3.

The switch has 25 gb/s....  sounds like a ps3 and no where near a ps4......  but it has more ram than the ps3.  

So yeah the switch is stronger than the ps3....  by 10-15% in performance.  Maybe 20%. 

It doesn't touch the ps4.  There is nothing on the switch that is like Ghost, GoW, Horizon, etc.  

Steve Jobs was the first to present the concept of retina display when he showed the iPhone 4. It is when the number of pixels is high enough so that our eye does not notice that the image is made up of pixels. It is what makes the image perfectly defined since our eye is unable to see beyond it.

They calculated that 300 pixels per inch is the maximum that our retina can see at the distance at which we usually have the smartphone. That is the retina point for the smartphone.

But on a television the retina point changes, because televisions have very variable sizes and are viewed at very variable distances, while smartphones are much more homogeneous in size and are viewed at a much more homogeneous distance.

The most common distance at which we watch the television is 3 meters. At that distance, 4k is a waste even with a 70-inch screen because the human eye cannot see that much definition; You would have to stand five feet away so your eye can see it.

1080p is optimal on a 70-inch screen from 3 meters away. And 720p is optimal on a normal-sized screen from 3 meters away.

And now let's move on to the commercial aspect. When the customer goes to the store they find a 70-inch 4k screen. The client observes it from a distance of one meter. At that distance the human eye does see the definition. And the customer decides to buy it without knowing that when he gets home and sees it from several meters away, 1080p would have been ideal.

And now let's move on to the world of consoles. What they have created for games is a false 4k. They have done it because they know that the world is full of idiots and that with the claim of 4k they are going to sell them more. And because they know that the human eye is not capable of noticing the difference between a true 4k and a fake 4k (you won't notice it unless you are a crazy person who buys a 70-inch screen and places it one meter away to play).

The only area where 4k can make sense is in the world of PC gaming because we normally stand 1 meter away from the screen. But even here 4k also has drawbacks. And the image defects that are not noticeable in a 1080p resolution are noticeable in a 4k resolution. Gamers with brains prefer the performance, response speed and image quality of 1080p.

Regarding the price aspect, I will only say that I live in the 36th richest country in the world in GDP (PPP) per capita and here the most common salary is the minimum wage. There's no point in spending money on stupid things.

Finally there is the key aspect: the player. The player always seeks the best possible experience. And he knows that this is not achieved with higher pixel rates. But with the game itself.

An example of this is Roblox. Roblox has PS2 graphics, but it has millions of active users every month, right now it is worth 25 billion, and at its peak it was worth more than BMW or what Microsoft paid for Activision.

You're focusing too much on a single aspect, that being raw bandwidth, and overlooking others such as the whopping 500% increase in memory capacity over PS3.

And in fact that raw bandwidth number vs PS3 is misleading; they look the same on paper, but precisely because of technological progress, the Switch supports Delta Colour Compression, a newer trick that gives it greater efficiency per GB.

And where is this 10-15-20% number coming from? Switch runs several games that are 720p or less on PS3 at 1080p, that in itself is a more than 100% increase in performance.

I don't know what to tell you.  If you think visuals for switch games are closer to ps4 than ps3, that is your opinion and while I disagree, I respect said opinion.

But tech is facts and we have easy examples.

Steam Deck newer chipset than 1080ti

Steam Deck more vram than 1080ti

1080ti significantly more memory bandwidth than Steam Deck.

And the winner via benchmarks and in-game performance is the 1080ti by a wide margin.

Not sure what else to tell you.  All this is easily searchable.  The facts are readily available.  Muscle matters.  It trumps newer chips with low muscle.

The Steam deck, despite newer chips and more vram, cannot make up for the 88 gb/s bandwidth against the 1080ti at almost 500 gb/s.

I flatly do not care what the switch has in chipsets.  It is 25 gb/s and it is a massive bottleneck.  Hardware is only as good as its weakest bottleneck.

There is a reason the 4090 is over 1,000 gb/s and the 5090 will be over 1,500 gb/s.

People are grossly underselling memory bandwidth.  

I feel like you've misunderstood my position.

I never said Switch was on par with the PS4 or even close to it. I've always said that it sits partway between PS3 and PS4; closer to PS3 in raw throughput, closer to PS4 in supported features and memory size.

I understand wholly.  You just give the impression that raw power and modern features are equal partners in the dance, meaning 1:1.  I'm saying they are not equal...  raw power needs weighting of at least 2x, if not more.  See Steam Deck vs 1080ti for details. 

Newer features aren't a non-factor though, that's all I'm saying.

In the case of Switch and PS3, the advantages can be seen in the games they share.

Take the Crysis trilogy for example. The Switch versions smoke the PS3 versions.