The switch is so dramatically different that I cannot slight the port taking longer. It is also dramatically slower than a theoretical lockhart. Better then to ask: Do games run on a RTX 2060 and RTX 2080 Ti at different resolutions at the same settings? Yes.
I think that answers the question more than enough.
Right, but the question - I believe - was regarding a case of extensive GPGPU use, rather than resolution scaling. That is the case where Lockhart doesn't fit nearly as neatly, potentially. It is the case where it might be the 'Switch' of the litter, so to speak. Architectural similarity aside, if the excess compute wasn't there to do what the dev wanted, the port would be challenging.
There are many credible arguments for why Lockhart might typically be fine for many games - not least a potential lack of extensive gpgpu use next gen - but the 'Switch port' trump card that often gets pulled doesn't hold up IMO as some sort of cover-all for every next-gen use-case that might arise. It's not a good analogy unless we expect developers will treat Xbox ports in those contexts the same way because of the need for a Lockhart downport. It won't be, they'll accommodate it for day and date releases, so it won't be the same (non-)factor in devs' minds wrt 'ambition' or hardware-use, as a hypothetical 'maybe' Switch port is or isn't with the likes of Claybook, or Witcher 3, or whatever.
With the need to guarantee a day and date release on Xbox, Lockhart IMO
could be a on hamper whatever 'extensive gpgpu' ambitions a dev might have had otherwise. With that constraint, ambition will slip before release SKUs or dates do. Did they have those ambitions pre-the-existence of Lockhart? Did they think they
might have had, over the ensuing 5 years, or whatever, of the cycle? Well, different questions. I guess it wouldn't have been typical, but maybe you'd get different answers depending on who you ask.
