I'm looking at your comments here and I think you have a misunderstanding. While the 2050 may be the most similar comparison to the T239 in terms of feature set, memory interface, etc. they are not the same chip. It's not just a "cut down" chip from 2021. It's a new chip that is made to be more compact and with a lower TDP.  

2050's die size is around 200mm². The original Switch was about 110mm² and the revision is 100mm². The T239 is estimated to be around 91mm² based on 5nm production. The 2050's TDP is about 30 watts. The Switch is 15 watts and the Switch 2 should be around the same. 

Basically, T239 has a little less grunt than a 2050 while working with less than half the space for transistors AND half the TDP. We also aren't considering the fact that the amount of low latency RAM that the T239 will have access to far surpasses the paltry 4GB the 2050 does and that the T239 is heavily rumored to feature several customizationsand features which weren't originally part of the Ampere architecture.

So your dissatisfaction with this chip is a bit unwarranted from what we know. Yeah, it's not top of the line, but it's not some old chip from four years ago either. Making something ultra portable is difficult and creates limitations that consoles like the Series X and PS5 don't have to deal with. If the die size is too large then you have to deal with the weight and size of the product and how you'll have room for things like the battery. If the TDP is too high then you have to include a bigger battery (which also equals a larger product and more heft) or deal with absurdly low battery life and consumer complaints. This isnt even getting into the issue of heat dissipation, which is incredibly important. The more wattage the more heat, the more heat the more that needs to be done about the heat which, again, will increase size, weight, etc. While laptops have to worry about some of these issues too, they don't have to worry about it nearly to the extent that a product like the Switch does. I mean, the Switch is roughly a quarter the size of the average laptop. You can't expect the same things out of those products. 

Digital Foundry and one reliable leaker were saying it would probably be a 8nm chip. Well have to wait and see.

Specs comparisons aside, at least the S2 will have a compelling lineup unlike the Xbox.

Depending on the storage configuration(I understand that there would be multiple options here), I would assume it would cost between 400 and 500$.

Pretty much; all the specs in the world can't save you if you don't have great games.

On the flipside, as the Switch has demonstrated, you don't need high end specs if the software is killer.

The Switch has pretty low-end hardware.
4GB of Ram was always a sticking point and I would have liked to have seen 8GB on release to let the hardware breathe better.

But even the Xbox One and Playstation 4 OS's, once they had loaded everything they needed, they were quick to navigate even with spinning rust drives... But they had 2.5GB+ Ram for that... Which harkens back to my original point that the Switch and Switch 2.0 need more Ram so they can do more... Because the Xbox One had: Voice Chat, Streaming, Remote Play, Kinect/Voice Commands, Web Browser, Apps, DLNA and more.

The Switch using solid state storage has an advantage over those old consoles due to low access times and yet something simple like the eShop is still a slow and stuttery mess.

This Ram information is as good as we could have possibly expected. It's not simply going from 4 gigs to 12 gigs, the jump from LPDDR4 to LPDDR5X is huge in and of itself. It really shows that the Switch 2 is a true generational leap over the current Switch, and is much better than the RAM specs Digitial Foundry used for its testing of 'approximate hardware' a while back.

With the og Switch, how much would it have even benefited from having 8 gigs of RAM as opposed to 4? 8 seems like a waste given the bottlenecks of the RAM speed and the limitations of the chipset.

I could be wrong but won't clock speeds determine the memory bandwidth?  122 gb/s is the max and if the chipset is underclocked it could be a good amount less.  The switch was underclocked by a good amount.  

I guess basically I'm waiting for confirmation via Nintendo before making too many assumptions.  

For everything that's going in this thread about the debate over the hardware itself and how it'll stack up to consoles and PC in the futures, that's always the main sticking point being ignored.

Most likely, Nintendo judged consciously that this was the base of their needs for the next hardware/software evolution.

Their games will be made with these capabilities in mind. They could shoot for the moon but hey don't because as proven with the Switch, it's not an absolute necessity when working on games. Even moreso when you look at the industry lamentable state about the layoffs and the increase in costs of production it's going through.

Nintendo is not ignorant of those factors and will want to continue on their strategy of selling different grades of software to reach the biggest public possible. 

Anywoo, a delay into 2025 for the Switch successor has nothing catastrophic as to the impact it'll have on it's sales because of said "outdated-ness", when it's done in service to actually get the games ready for the time it releases. The games will sell the console, not the other way around. As it usually is in the end.

120GB/sec is significantly higher than the RTX 2050 Digital Foundry tested (which only has 4GB 96GB/sec) too.

I think even Rich there has said 12GB @120GB/sec was higher than they were thinking and that's Digital Foundry, nerds who obsess over every pixel, regular gamers should be very happy with that news.