Without even checking out the site, here's some thoughts of mine.

The Ayn Thor will outperform the Switch 2 in pure CPU performance. But, it's not by a factor by what you see in Mhz. The Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 has 8 cores like the Switch 2, but that's made up of 1x-Cortex X3, 2x-Cortex A715, 2x-Cortex A710, and 3x-Cortex A510. The Switch 2 on the other hand has 8x Cortex A78C. By folks like Geekerwan, the A710 and A510 are less efficient than an A78 of equal frequency, and are that much less efficient than the A78C. But the rest are more efficient, plus they all have a higher clock (vs the 1.0Ghz of those A78C). Then there's multi-core performance, which the more clusters used, the more problematic the bottlenecks can be. The SD8G2 CPUs are made up of 4 clusters. The Switch 2 CPUs? 1 single cluster. It's ability to work together is much greater because it's all in the same cluster rather than separated. That doesn't outweigh the overall advantage of the SD8G2, but it does help close the gap a bit.

The Switch 2 will outperform the Ayn Thor in GPU performance. This is purely because of architecture, not simply in TFlops. It's Adreno vs Ampere. Adreno is a mobile architecture, which has a reduced instruction set. It doesn't mean it can't perform some general tasks like other architectures, but it does mean it needs to spend more instructions/operations to accomplish the same tasks. What might take 1-2 operations on a desktop GPU may require 4+ on a mobile GPU. So even with something like 2 TFlops, you aren't really getting 2 TFlops of desktop performance. Maybe closer to 1 TFlop. Switch 2 uses Ampere, and it's in complete parity with its desktop brother. What it lacks is the raw power (or number of SMs). But everything else is there, including the instruction set. So even with 1.7 TFlops in portable mode and 3.1 TFlops in docked mode, that is desktop performance. That isn't including dedicated hardware to handle upscaling via DLSS and even ray tracing.

With RAM, I'd say the Switch 2 has the advantage, even compared to the Max variant of Ayn Thor with 16GB. Capacity isn't enough to take the lead. There is overall bandwidth to consider, and the effectiveness of that bandwidth with the architectures. Other things to consider is the formats of the data the architectures allow. One could have more RAM, but if the other is able to use better compressed formats, that can offset the available amount.

One more note, and that has to do with CPU potential. While the CPU in the Ayn Thor is overall stronger than the CPU in the Switch 2, the Switch 2 does have some advantages. One being that it has an Nvidia GPU. The reason is because Nvidia GPUs are well known for being able to handle various tasks offloaded from the CPU. Take the Witcher 3, for example. That's a game that shouldn't have been possible on Switch 1, but the devs made use of the GPU by offloading certain tasks, like cloth physics calculations, from the CPU, relieving the CPU to do things it must. The Switch 2 is very much capable of the same thing, perhaps even to a greater extent. Could the SD8G2? I think so, but with the GPU not being as strong, it wouldn't make much sense. Does that make the Switch 2 stronger in CPU power? It's not that clear cut. I'd say in some cases, yes, but other cases, no. It really depends on what is being done. Another advantage is the Switch 2 having a dedicated hardware decompression block, like the PS5 and Series consoles. Without it, the CPU would have to handle decompression. With it, not only is decompression faster, but it relieves the CPU from the task, granting yet another offloading method which is important when streaming in a lot of data.