That is actually a good data point so fair enough with this reply, that aspect might not be as clear as I thought. We've gotten away from the original point of this though so to return to the Skyrim part the i5-2400 has a rough time with Hogwarts Legacy with some bad drops into the 20s at demanding parts while the Switch 2 has a fairly stable 30fps and while Cyberpunk isn't as bad on that CPU it can still drop into the 20's when things get more demanding so if Skyrim Special Edition can run at 60fps on that CPU can you finally admit you were wrong on that?

More than anything else your blatant inconsistency with changing up your argument when it was convenient with you initially saying "A 2011 game running at 30fps on hardware released in 2025" to make the Switch 2 look bad but then later on saying it's the Special Edition so it's from 2017 when it was pointed out that it ran fine on the Switch 1 was just embarrassing.

Well it is factually true that the original game is from 2011. It looks like I flip flopped but I still I genuinely don't know if the Switch 2, PS4/PS4Pro or XBOne/XboneX could run Skyrim 2011 edition at 60fps, let alone the 2016 special edition as they all have some serious weak points in their hardware. I don't want to argue over the technical capabilities of the Switch 2 anymore. Digital foundry did an excellent job at comparing Switch 2 and PS4 in Cyberpunk and I don't think I can do anything better than them with words in this forum here. 

PS4 also has a version of Hogwarts legacy that runs at a stable 30fps? We know PS4's CPU is terrible and much worse than I5-2400, so that means nothing? 

If the Switch 1 can run the 2011 edition just fine then the Switch 2 can obviously run it at a far higher FPS since its CPU as mentioned is well over twice as powerful as the one in the Switch 1, come on now. If you genuinely don't know that then sorry but you're just being very ignorant and not using basic logic. And your question is not relevant since I've clearly already shown the i5-2400 running games worse than the Switch 2 including the one you just mentioned, Hogwarts Legacy.

And the Switch 1 isn't running the 2011 edition. The 2011 edition uses a 32bit engine and the Switch uses a 64bit build, it uses the special edition engine. It will have the higher CPU requirements associated with that.

It just has a bunch of the SSE graphical enhancements disabled, which will have a negligible impact on the CPU.

Right so him treating it like the 2011 version at first but then switching up later when it was convenient was some real nonsense. Acting as if it's up in the air whether the Switch 2 could run the original version at 60fps might be the stupidest thing I've seen on here this whole year.

If someone rejects all the dozens of third party games that released on Playstation ( I don't count the first party exclusives)  for games likes Kirby, Zelda and Mario Kart then for sure he prefers kiddy games. My post was legit, sorry if Nintendo fans find the truth harsh.

I mean, you already made a horrible post, but sure, go ahead and keep doubling down on it.

Must feel SO mature taking this kind of stance on videogames 

My mistake and not an intention to mislead anyone.  I forgot that the the Skyrim VR edition runs at 60fps on the PS4. So yes, we know the CPU is capable of 60fps. Wish I had remembered that earlier. Maybe BGS could only achieve a version at 60fps that looked like the PS4 version in VR mode, and maybe they weren't happy with that and chose graphics over framerate. I still think expecting double the framerate of PS4 Skyrim (non VR version) from BGS for Switch 2 is unfair. Digital foundry have shown how close the systems are in performance and have compared the Switch 2 to a PS4 with DLSS. Why not believe them are are great at what they do. Unless I'm mistaken on that too? What would you expect a 60fps version to look like? 

Gratulation @ PlayStation 5 :)
its over for xbox. even in the usa. I think the console will soon be discontinued in more stores.