It's heavily modified, just the base instructions are still ARM based. Carmel, the CPU part, is so heavily modified it doesn't even count as an ARM v8 variant anymore, unlike the Denver and Denver 2 cores that preceded it.

X1 got used for AI, but was not specifically designed for like Xavier did. Hence why most of it is useless in a gaming scenario unless you delve deep into it's workings to unlock it's power. And in that regard, it would be similar to how complicated it was for game developers to get much out of Cell.

Oh, and Xavier's power only matches XBO, nothing near PS5 levels

I can see a New Nintendo Switch/Switch Pro coming in 2020 with a Tegra X2 inside it.

Honestly they'd be foolish not to; hardware revisions are a great way to boost sales. Every one of their past handhelds has benefited from this. Gameboy/GBA/DS/3DS would not have sold as well without upgrades like the Gameboy Colour, GBA SP, DS Lite/DSi, New 3DS/2DS.

The great thing is, with a Switch Pro, you wouldn't even really need to do extra work  for a new performance profile; so many games today use a dynamic resolution that you'd get an automatic boost there from games holding closer to the higher end of their resolution range.

Exactly, a lot of games, even Nintendo's, are reliant on dynamic res and all of these would see immediate boosts.  Microsoft and Sony have seen this already with the X and Pro.  Odyssey could hit 900p at all times and they could probably drop the temporal reconstruction method in handheld for a straight 720p.  Doom and Wolfenstein could probably lock their res in dock and vastly improve it in handheld while also tightening up the performance.  

Shoot, I would buy it.  Especially if it came with some other upgrades such as a 900p or better screen, an improved kickstand, and other basic quality improvements.  

At this point I don't think they ever will. We will most likely have a refresh down the line that will use the same chip but at slightly higher clocks so that some games might run a bit smoother. They decided to go full hog on the portable and using a better Tegra chip still won't solve the AAA game port issue one bit.

Probably that will not be problem any more because they intend to stick to same tech and architecture (Nvidia + ARM) thats in Switch.

Tegra Xavier could be possibility for Switch 2, not for Switch Pro, Tegra X2 would be perfect for Switch Pro.

Why do you think that, we had DSi and New 3DS that both had stronger hardware than original versions of those consoles, something similar can be expected for Switch also.

I dont think Nintendo cares to much about that, we had DSi and New 3DS, its almost certain that they will do something similar for Switch also.

I can see Switch Pro/XL and Switch Mini/Pocket also, Nintendo inteds to have wider offer of Switch family, similar like 3DS family with 3DS, 3DS XL, New 3DS, New 3DS XL, 2DS and New 2DS XL.

I agree with OP, Switch XL/Pro that offers current docked performance (resolution and frame rate) in portable mod and higher docked performance than current in docked mod. Tegra X2 would be perfect for achieving that.

I also seeing Switch Mini/Pocket thats smaller and around $100 cheaper than regular Switch, just for handheld play.

It's amazing that whenever you're trying to weave a narrative you always apparently know people that are either naysayers or true believers that help support your case. Can you just drop with the obviously ridiculous anecdotes? Once again, you know people that have given up their compass for a cell phone? They given up a non-battery operated reliable, critical navigation device, or a digital, long-battery life device that uses satellites and/or the earth's magnetic pole for a battery-operate device that depends on cell reception it may not have, and depends on software that may not be accurate? I can't fathom that anyone believes you 99.9% of the time you claim to know people that fit your narrative. They're so obviously outlandish.

In 2013, when the PS4/X1 launched, was the time of the Apple 5S, and Samsung Galaxy S4. Apple was selling 150 million iPhones alone in 2013. You're delusional if you think smartphones were not firmly established at that time.Many smartphone owners were on their second or third smartphone by then. I literally knew people who worked at Walmart that bought the previous year's iPhone 5 for like $100 on a two year plan when the 5S launched. The smartphone market really started to take off in 2010/2011, when smartphones quadrupled over that period. But that's years before the PS4/X1 came out. So what are you talking about? We can look this shit up. We don't have to take your word for it, and once again, your word is completely wrong.

And you think google is concerned with the few dollars Sony/MS/Nintendo get per game copy sold? Really? Considering how hard those companies have to work for it? Wouldn't it be far easier just keep to taking a higher margin off of Android store sales and just encourage manufacturers to keep making more and more devices that play play android apps? I'm pretty sure it would. Like you do realize that Apple has already "consolized" the appleTV, right? You can buy games for your iPhone and play them on your appleTV and iPad right now Do you see any noticable impact PS4 and X1 sales? Because I don't. And do I think we're a few years away from having smart phones that are just as powerful, and as easy to port to as game consoles would be at that time? No. No I do not. I'm not sure anyone would. It has, and will forever remain true that when you have to build for a tiny form factor that runs off of battery power, you have to make tremendous sacrifices in performance compared to what you could design that runs off of outlet power, and can use a components and power consumption that is practically a degree of magnitude higher.. Your entire idea hinges on the concept that in 202whatever, most people are going to be totally content using a 5" 720p screen (as if rendering is the only critical factor) and because you think this one part of handheld device can stagnate, it can take better advantage of  hardware improvements than consoles can. That's a PPI of 293. Whats the PPI of the iPhone 8 ? 326. How about the Samsung Galaxy? 571. But yeah, I'm totally sure smartphone users would be willing to accept a such a huge drop off in screen quality in 2018, that is only going to get larger as time goes on. Because reasons.

As for touch controls, you're the one that brought it up in your little dramatic rant. "If you are fine with touch controls, and gaming as an, oh yeah, you can do that if you like type of product, then great. If you are fine with Apple, and Google taking over everything, then steady the course," Yes, because it's just that easy to take over. That's why everyone is now using Google + instead of Facebook right? People wouldn't be using Facebook Messenger, they'd be using Google Buzz. And how many Google glass users do you see out in the wild? None. But you want to assume they can just bomb into the console space with a game console that lets you play AAA on your phone with touch controls, and wipe Sony and Nintendo off the map. You literally believe this will happen. You think that one day someone is going to choose a Google gamebox over a PS5 because the Google gamebox lets you play Madden with touch controls on your smart phone, as if there are hundreds of millions of people that think that's a feature worth buying.  It isn't. Just like they haven't accepted motion controls or VR. Gamers still want to play on a TV, sitting down on their couch, using a gamepad. There's no reason to expect that is going to change any time soon. If Sony is the only one in five years time releasing a dedicated home console that you hook up to a TV, and lets you use a gamepad, and lets you play all of the latest AAA games from all the biggest publishers for the next five years, they'll enjoy 100 million + in sales for probably decades to come.

But hey at least Google knows that if they did want to go after the scraps in the game console space, they'll have at least one sale in you.

This is like a Democrat vs Republican debate. I swear we live in two different worlds.

Here is all I have left to say. DS + PSP = 235M, 3DS + Vita = 88M. Things can and will change very quickly, if Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft don't get their ecosystems right. 

A lot of the third party ports and even nintendos own games use dynamic resolutions, so in theory most games wouldn't even need patches to take some advantage of a more powerful switch pro.

The X2 is a good candidate, it could potentially double battery life in portable mode and offer some nice improvements docked.

Well it's kinda like a Democrat vs. Republican debate. Except I'm relying on facts,  and you're basing your opinion off of... well who exactly knows? Listen, you're the guy that used his Vita as his cell phone for years, and thought it was fantastic. Can you accept that perhaps your perspective represents a very tiny small fraction of consumers, and maybe you need to rely on others to get a more grounded perspective for what say a hundred million gamers would want?

That's the problem. You think their ecosystems are wrong. I don't see a problem with them. Considering Sony and MS have sold 25 million more PS4/X1s than they did PS3/X360s up to this point appears to indicate that their ecosystems are actually not only wrong, but thriving. Just because people didn't prefer to carry around both a phone and a handheld game console doesn't mean that they care nearly as much whether they have one box connected to their tv or three. Considering how things like the NES and SNES classic have sold, I really, really don't think people care too much. You've yet to demonstrate there is actually a serious threat to Sony, MS and Nintendo in the home console space even a little, that if Apple convinces Rockstar to release GTA VI for iOS at $60, Sony and MS are going to watch the sales of GTA VI on their consoles nosedive. You've yet to demonstrate that assuming its' possible the ability to play AAA games on your phone using touchpad controls is something people are a) interested in b) willing to pay for and c) willing to buy a Google console over a Sony/MS/Nintendo console just to get it if those ecosystems don't offer it. You just assume that all of that is true. How about providing some fact based reasoning for why you think it's true, and if you can't, perhaps admit that saying things like "the writing is on the wall" is maybe, just maybe completely overblown.

Furthermore you've yet to demonstrate that the best solution to the apparent problem of Apple and Google potentially bombing in and fucking with Sony/MS/Apple's day in the home console space this is to make more devices in multiple form factors for different primary purposes all running the same OS and all able to run the same software, and not to make consoles so compelling that people will still choose them over what Apple and Google are offering. So if you got some compelling reasons why this is not only the best solution, but the only solution Sony/MS/Nintendo should be considering, now is the time, because the baseless assertions aren't cutting it.