I guess that the SD card slot of Switch 2 only has the purpose to store some games and not to directly play the games from it. Much like you can't play PS5 games from the additional SSD you can put into the PS5.

They've kind of done it already in a time where innovation was much easier and more meaningful. NES to SNES.

If it ain't broke don't fix it. SNES remains my favourite Nintendo console. And as a 3rd party player first, the Switch 2 (or Super Switch) may match or beat it for me (unless nostalgia intervenes, and it will lol).

I think a truly innovative console would require expensive additional hardware like VR which remains clunky, uncomfortable, and hard to get into.

Nintendo will still innovate via accessories, and if the main accessory finds success and momentum, they might standardize it in their next console.

I think as we've seen with the GA107 chips (2050, 3050, and 3050ti mobile) performance doesn't scale much with memory bandwidth (see: RTX 2050 vs. RTX 3050 comparison from earlier, within 2% of each-other on average, with memory bandwidth being the only difference.)

So 120 GBps probably is a good choice on Nintendo's part.

If the TGP were Series S level and clock rates could go quite high, then maybe the Switch 2 would benefit from more memory bandwidth, but the bottleneck seems to be elsewhere for these lower-end Ampere chips.

I think 90 to 120 gb/s is a good spot, I don't have a problem with the rumored choices.  I just see a lot people, not just on VG, commenting that the S2 is going to have more ram than the Series S...  which might be true, but people are forgetting the ram is WAY slower.  And that is fine, mobile isn't going to compete with home.

While this is indeed true, VRAM throughput and VRAM capacity will affect different visual settings.

You can have situations where the Switch 2 might have lower internal resolutions and fewer, high-quality dynamic assets and features that need to be updated regularly (processing needs to happen often) but better texture quality and more, high-quality static assets that don't update frequently (processing happens less regularly.) 

We've also seen the situation where capacity is an issue (an actual bottleneck that affects performance) much more frequently than throughput during this generation (largely because you can scale for throughput very easily these days.)  

The Series S is almost certainly going to remain the more powerful system, but if the Switch 2 indeed has more available memory than it (after accounting for system utilities like OS), then there will be particular settings and games where the Switch 2 has the potential to come ahead (even if it is weaker overall.) 

Sounds reasonable.  I am new to hardware and far from an expert.  I just know my 4070, at 12 gb, smokes the base ps5, despite the ps5 being 16 gb.  Thus, there has to be more to it than just how much vram.  

Either way, for a mobile device, the S2 is well positioned.

Edit

I always assumed my CPU helped smoke the ps5.  I suspect the CPU in the series s to be much better than the S2.  

Your 4070 also has system memory to swap from (or allocated CPU tasks to) and far more, higher performant, cores than the base PS5. As far as memory bandwidth is concerned, the PS5 and 4070 are in similar ballparks. 

A more recent GDDR6 version of the 4070 (versus the original GDDR6X version) has just released with essentially insignificant performance differences from the original at 1080p and 1440p, resolutions that most people use this GPU for. 

Although -5% loss of memory bandwidth wouldn't suggest there would be much of a difference anyway. 

https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-gddr6-vs-gddr6x-tested-99-performance-at-1440p-1080p-98-at-4k

CPU bottlenecks are far more rare these days than in the 8th generation (and prior.) At the performance targets that Switch 2 and Series S aim for (30-60fps) I don't think either system is going to be (or is, in the Series S case) very CPU-bound in most titles.

Any idea what is driving Avowed and Snake Eater being capped at 30 fps on consoles?  Rumor has it MH Wilds will be capped as well.  

Game developers know most console players prefer prettier games than higher frame rates, so they push for higher quality visuals and set a 30fps target to achieve them, only to later add performance modes. I am almost certain that somebody will get Avowed to play at 60fps on a Ryzen 5 3600 (a CPU weaker than the series X's) without over-utilizing that CPU (pegging it at 100% utilization on any core) by pairing it with the proper GPU and dialing in reasonable graphics settings. 

When Starfield originally released on the Series X it was limited to 30fps. People argued it was because the Series X's CPU was bottlenecking the title. Now it has a 60fps performance mode. If it were indeed a CPU bottleneck, we wouldn't expect the game's performance to scale well with internal resolution changes. 

The maximum data bus width for soldered LPDDR5 is 32-bit, so at 7500 MT/s = 30 GB/s per module.

If I were to hazard a guess it'll be either three 32 Gb modules at 32-bit or six 16 Gb modules at 16-bit, so that's more like 90 GB/s.