1) you are the one who keeps using the "premium" nomenclature, nobody else is. So that is funny as ****.

2) who are you fighting a battle with?  We all agree premium makes no sense for consoles.  Almost like you fight imaginary battles and declare victory later.  

3) I clearly stated I don't even think the ps5 pro is premium, much less the base model.  Once again, you are fighting an imaginary battle.   

4) for the last time (truly, at least on my end), what was said is the S2 won't run the ps5 version.  And it doesn't.  The ps5 version has better lighting, higher resolution and higher fps, increased graphical settings (like particle and volumetric).  Anything can be ported with sacrifices, which is why November 2023 I said the S2 can run modern games, just not the ps5 version.  For the record I am playing Tsushima on the PC, and it isn't the ps5 version..  because I am getting 4k, higher settings and 120 fps...  that isn't the ps5 version.  Just like watching Star Wars on a 32 inch TLC 720p TV with built in speakers isn't the same as watching it at 8k IMax with 50 speaker surround.  The experience is different.  And as said many times over, most people don't care, so the S2/Nintendo is positioned very well.  The S2 is well designed.  

But if you want, I can send you a blue ribbon for all the imaginary battles you have won?  

You just defined "premium" there for yourself, even the PS5 Pro which an extreme niche device isn't good enough to be in that category. So like what is the point of even having a discussion, that a ridiculously niche category of game console hardware to an extent that no one really cares.  

You said like 8000 different things (most of them wildly incorrect like DLSS won't make much of a difference, FF7 Integrade won't be possible on Switch 2, let alone Rebirth no way, PS4 level power even though that made no sense with 1536 CUDA cores, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) while popping into every Switch 2 discussion for years here. It's not my problem now that you don't like being reminded of some of the things you said (probably using an alt account as well to spam discussions as there mysteriously was another account that randomly pops up pretty only in threads you post in parroting the exact same talking points).

I can understand that viewpoint, there is enough power there to provide amazing gaming experiences for sure however those game experiences may need to get cut back to run on the hardware. As Virtuos stated the CPU performance is around PS4 level, if you take it purely by the numbers the Switch 2 sits in the middle between PS4 and PS4 Pro CPU performance but if you factor in the Switch 2 uses 2 of its cores for the OS/Gamechat then probably near enough PS4 level which only used one of its CPU cores for the OS. This is still over 3x the CPU power of the original Switch, a huge upgrade. It scores around 2000 on a passmark CPU test by extrapolating from other devices that use the ARM A78 CPUs. A comparison is the Steam Deck has 9000 passmark CPU and the Claw A1M has 27,000 passmark CPU. My point is the CPU performance is quite weak and some games require high CPU performance and others have greater demands for GPU performance. I totally accept the Switch 2 is a fixed platform though so many publishers will make the huge investment in development time to create highly optimised games for Switch 2 where as others will not make that investment (cough... Bethesda) and they will focus on scaling back the CPU code to work. The estimates for the PS5 CPU performance are over 16,000 on the passmark CPU test using similar AMD CPU architecture.

I'm personally of the believe that graphics can be scaled back to suit most of the time and often the difference isn't that important visually. So I'm happy to think any game visually can be tackled on the Switch 2 pretty much, yes it may lose resolution, detail and clever visual effects but not really super important especially on a portable screen. However we still have the big issue of CPU performance and more limited memory to a lesser extent. I think the Switch 2 can do amazing versions of PS4 and Xbox One generation games and of course its own exclusive titles which are the most important titles. However when it comes to games that need high CPU resources going forward I feel the games may need to be cut back so much that you aren't getting the full fat experience and you would be better off playing the game elsewhere. Games like Skyrim and No Mans Sky ran on Switch but not great and not really the full experience compared to PC or PS4 or Xbox One. Skyrim had high input lag I think of around 100ms even on the Switch 1 and looked a bit rough compared to even the 360 version in places. Both PS3 and 360 have more CPU resources than Switch. I state that because remember reading that the Switch and wii u had very similar CPU resources yet 360 and PS3 easily beat the wii u for CPU performance. I have no figures to back that up. 

The fun thing about having actual games as proof is not having to listen to dumb opinions on what "PS4 performance" even means and how that supposedly relates to the Switch 2. 

When's the PS4 getting FF7 Rebirth and Star Wars Outlaws with ray tracing and Indiana Jones & The Great Circle, and Monster Hunter Wilds and Assassin's Creed Shadows like the Switch 2 already has or will have coming for it soon?

Oh yeah that's right ... never. Because you would actually have to radically rework those games to work on a PS4, the Switch 2 not so much because its GPU is several generations beyond a PS4 architecture wise (not to mention Nvidia's architecture is generally simply better than AMD, let alone old ass AMD arch). 

It's nice to have the system out and have game announcements and releases that can do all the talking and not have to listen to just amateur hour opinions. 

Definite "several generations beyond a PS4 architecture wise". That's the kind of shit you keep pouring and get you called out.

Isn't the actual games the best proof?

PS4 is running huge detailed open world games like Red Dead Redemption 2 and Horizon Forbidden West, games with extremely good looking models like The Last of Us Part II and Detroit Become Human, and one of the most impressive racing games ever in Gran Turismo 7, for example.

As far as games are concerned the PS4 can also run pretty much anything out there provided the necessary cutbacks are made, just like the Switch 2, and that's why many studios devided to still support it while they felt profit was there.

But sure, go ahead, treat the PS4 with disdain, exactly like you think (but is not happening) people are treating the Switch 2, which makes you mad.

You keep posting the same shit over and over like a broken record.

The bolded part, exactly.  If someone wants to say it outclasses the ps4, fair, it does.  If someone wants to argue it outclasses the ps4 pro, questionable, but still acceptable.  But the attitude that it is leaps and bounds beyond the ps4 is absurd.  

Elden Ring:

ps4 - 1080p/30 fps

s2 - 1080p/30 fps

FF7 Remake

ps4 - 1080p/30 fps

S2 - 1080p/30 fps

Street Fighter 6

ps4 - 1080p/60 fps

S2 - 980p/60 fps

Digital Foundry put Cyber Punk above the ps4, but below the ps4 pro..  this obnoxious attitude that the S2 leaps/bounds above the ps4 and ps4 pro is so flatly false.   

But be careful BraLoD, if you don't agree with him, he will assume you are an alt because reasons.

I am guessing he doesn't want to admit people were right with their predictions.  Denying reality, repeating the same thing over/over and declaring victory on imaginary battles..  reminds me of someone.  

and, to your point, if a game released on a particular hardware is a business decision.  The Switch has no GTA games, but it could run them.  Survivor, a next gen game, was ported to the ps4.  Survivor has similar requirements to SH F, which means that could be ported as well.  Unicorn Overlord isn't on PC, that doesn't mean it can run the game.  

edit

Estimates on GPU:

ps4 is a 7850

S2 is a 1050ti (63% increase over 7850)

ps4 pro is a RX 470 (27% increase over a 1050ti)

The ps4 pro has a more powerful CPU compared to the Switch 2.  The Switch 2 fits between the ps4 and ps4 pro, but with newer tech like RT.  So, calling the S2 a ps4 pro with bells/whistles is just accurate..  and ironically is exactly what the vast majority of us predicted.  Nintendo sacrificed power for price, as we all said they would.  It isn't a premium product, because if it were, the unit would be 16 gb ram, not 12 gb.    

Define several generations ahead? You really need that spelled out for you?

Ampere is comparable to AMD RDNA 2 (better than it actually) which is better than the hybrid RDNA 1/2 mix the PS5/XBox Series X have. 

The PS4 is a dated GCN 2.0 architecture from 2012/13 which is miles behind RDNA 2 and Ampere. 

The Switch being able to run next-gen games Star Wars Outlaws, Assassin's Creed Shadows already early in its product cycle without much fuss, and having PS5/XSS only titles like 007 First Light, Final Fantasy VII Rebirth, Indiana Jones, and Monster Hunter Wilds basically confirmed whereas the PS4 likely would not be able to run these games without serious retooling of the games is no surprise to me. I said this many times here and got attacked for saying so. 

I said years ago here the architecture fucking mattered, the actual Nvidia data leak was right there staring everyone in the face, 1536 CUDA cores with Ampere architecture and even some Lovelace features, but only a handful of people here seemed to grasp what that even meant. That was always going to be significantly better than a PS4 and be able to run games a PS4 can't and I said that many times and got grief for saying so. 

I even said that chip would likely be powerful enough that it would likely cause Japanese developers like Square-Enix to make their mainline big budget Final Fantasy games available on Switch 2 as well, and lookey lookey ... not only FF7 Remake Integrade but FF7 Rebirth AND their next big FF mainline release FF7 Remake Part III is indeed confirmed for Switch 2. 

I also said many times also this was not a budget hardware and would likely cost $400 only if you were lucky, likely $450 or more looking at the component leaks. 1536 CUDA cores, 12MB RAM, 256GB high speed internal storage, 8 inch display, this was not some rinky dinky bargain basement cheap hardware, but you had a lot of people here thinking $350 was in play (lol). Because I was looking at the actual leaks and the components therein, not basing thingson a stupid "dur hur Nintendo cannott make gud hardwarez this is will beeez just like da Wii You again when Ninty fans got too excitied" line of logic. 

You are doing the very same thing you have been complaying in this thread about, saying PS4 can't run X or Y game, when it can, it's mostly a business decision, pretty much like the Switch 1 or 2 running games from machines more powerful than them.

The difference being that nobody would say the PS4 is running the PS5 game with ease, but with compromisses, exactly like the Switch 2 is running PS5 games, with compromisses, and exactly like the PS5 is running those games compared to high end PCs: with compromisses.

The only one getting mad about it is you, even while you are also doing it yourself.

If PS4's GCN 2.0 having no/little difference to modern architectures like Ampere (which is better than AMD's RDNA2) is the hill you want to die on, I'm really not going to waste my time arguing with you, you either understand the differences there or you don't. You can have that hill and die on it. I can see clearly the games the Switch 2 is already getting early in its product cycle and it's already many of the biggest profile PS5/XSS only next-gen games and it's no suprise to me at all, several of these games I even called coming onto the system to other people saying no way (the next mainline Final Fantasy? Yup. FF7R Part III Confirmed. FF7 Rebirth port? Yup. Confimed. Monster Hunter Wilds? Looks like it). 

The general discourse with Nintendo hardware for whatever reason just seems dumb in a lot of ways and it seems specific to Nintendo platforms, other consoles it's just they hear a rumor/report and then go "yeah ... maybe, I dunno". I'll even cite another specific example that probably many posters will remember ... the whole dumb debate over when Nintendo can/can't unveil the system unless it aligns almost exactly with the Switch 1 and other previous Nintendo system time line. 

Like even when people like I and I think maybe one other poster tried to explain Nintendo only announced the NX (Switch 1) a couple of years before launch because they had to reassure stockholders that they were still going to make physical hardware going forward while announcing they were making smartphone games (perfectly logical) ... explaining this felt like trying to explain the theory of gravity to a religious person. 

People were still like "no, no, Nintendo has to first announce the Switch successor officially and then it will release like 2 years later, revealing the system and just launching a few months later can't happen". And guess what happened? They revealed the system in January and launched a few months later. So much for having to do a product unveil 18-24 months prior. And even *that* they probably were aiming to reveal maybe in late Jan/Feb, they got likely forced into revealing early because all the leaks were basically all correct and Nintendo knew it. It just seems like this is specific or far more prevalent with Nintendo discussions for whatever bizarre reason. Logic goes out the window. 

Lol, your actual prediction was $500+, with $600 being in play.  The rest of us were around $400, and the S2 is $450...  pretty spot on.  

As for 1536 cuda cores, jesus man, that isn't high end.  That is below a 2050 which launched five years ago.  The 5050 is 2560 cuda cores.  Not a fair comparison because it is desktop versus mobile, but I am rocking over 16,000 cude cores.  I don't get why 1536, which is below mobile GPUs from 2020 is such a shock. 

and if you compare fps and resolution of cross gen games with the ps4 and switch 2...  pretty much exactly the same, with the ps4 pro beating out the S2.   

Edit

And don't get me wrong, DK Bananza is a fantastic game, but it is 1080p with fps issues.  The S2 wasn't the 4k machine you made it out to be, it just flatly isn't.