I don't think you read the context correct Nvidia could entice Sony and MS over because simply put they're better than AMD, Switch is also a portable device which is why it has the rumoured 750Gf or 1Tf if you believe the guy who leaked the PS4 pro is really good for what it is now picture Nvidia doing things for standard consoles again. Scorpio's 6Tf is nothing to Nvidia if Sony announced a 6Tf console coming with Nvidia at the helm Scorpio would be in trouble that's the point.

Nvidia are better than AMD on windows, with Direct x 11.

Console space codeing to near metal.... Im not sure nvidia has any advantages.

Nvidia are fine in that aspect they're just as good, they were even supplying the chips for various consoles before AMD, the only reason the latter got all the contracts was because they were cheaper as is evident with the dispute between Nvidia and MS over the pricing of some of the Xbox chips.

Nvidia cant supply a x86 soc with a gpu in it.

MS needs that because they want a unified library too (like nitnendo) where people can play xbox games on the PC, and with easy porting back and forth.

Sony & MS will probably want Xbox Two & PS5, to be BC with XB1 & PS4,..... thats alot easier with x86.

Its not just about price. I think amd can deliver things nvidia cant. Even something like HSA, which PS4 & XB1 might be useing here and there, would be lost.

The alternative would be to get 2 chips instead, 1 from intel and a gpu from nvidia.

There would be drawbacks, and it would be more expensive.

"Nvidia are fine in that aspect they're just as good, they were even supplying the chips for various consoles before AMD"

And they where hard to work with, they did not have good relationships with nvidia in the past.

I suspect Nintendo went to them because they didnt have a alternative.

AMD doesnt have a arm+gpu soc at Tegra x2 levels atm, and maybe its cheaper for nintendo to just buy a already designed chip from nvidia, than it is to use R&D and have AMD design a custom chip for them.  AMD could make a arm+gpu soc if nintendo payed for it.

Nintendo didnt want to spend the R&D on it. And maybe nvidia left out in the cold gave nitnendo a really good price.

That's MS' problem not Nvidia or Sony's and if BC dictated hardware we wouldn't have x86 to begin with, for every one thing AMD can deliver Nvidia has shown to deliver an alternative as well as a few other things, to put it straight Nvidia are simply better they've just never been easy to let up on business because they've been in a good solid position for ages and being expensive is an example of that.

The chip in Switch is not really a Tegra x2 it's a custom one based on it which would mean the partnership between Nvidia and Nintendo is not much different than it was with the latter and AMD in fact Nvidia seem to have been given far more freedom, Nintendo could have spent money on the R&D if it meant a cheaper platform to release but I suspect Kishishima being more business minded opted for Nvidia as it would make for a better platform hardware wise for consumers and negotiated a deal with them that fits both parties.

I could see Sony in future doing a similar move and negotiating between both companies to get the better deal, I wouldn't put it past them to go for a good Nvidia GPU and sell at a slight lost if it means their platform has an advantage over MS.

The chip inside the Switch is probably already using the advertised 14/16nm half pitch so I don't think Nintendo can fit anymore logic in there unless they want to risk degrading the MTBF ratings ... 

I guess Nintendo could just forgo backwards compatibility if they really needed a new generation but they should ideally opt in to make the gfx API more abstract since it'll work to Nvidia's advantage and it'll make the lives of the programmers at Nintendo much easier when they do not want to work with anything hardcore like DX12 so it's a win-win in terms of the API design I'm talking about because it maximizes portability, performance, and ease of use.

Also, the idea that Nvidia will somehow swipe Sony or Microsoft from AMD in terms of console deals is LOL worthy when backwards compatibility is finding new value but if Nvidia is looking to usurp AMD then all the more luck to them acquiring x86 related patents before the console manufacturer's decide to start a new generation ... 

I'm not sure all the above goes to me, but I'll reply to some of it.

When Nvidia revealed the X2, they said that they would use the 16nm manufacturing process, so no matter if Nintendo goes with the X1 or the X2, the SoC will be made with that process.

When I said that Nintendo could go with a bigger GPU, I meant that once the 10nm is up and running, Nintendo could launch a revision of the Switch featuring a SoC with more shader cores of the same kind (either Pascal or Maxwell) and newer ARM cores. That would be their Pro/Scorpion-like machine.

Then, in another three or four years, is when they could launch a successor with Nvidia's newer architecture.

And yes, I agree with you that making the API more abstract would be useful in the long term, but in the short term that would mean not being able to use all the power inside the Switch.

I don't know what to say about the last paragraph, because I've never said that.

You mean, 2 modes of development?
there isnt already the case? one when docked other on the go...

The last line indeed isn't meant for you ... 

As far as porting Pascal to 10nm and starting with a new microachitecture later on that would be doable ... 

Short term impact is minimized since games are taking longer than ever to make so locking API design to hardware early on is not a good idea for building a solid foundation for backwards compatibility plus there are other ways to expose hardware functionality writing in custom GPU microcode ... 

Lol. Loool. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you? Let me remind you that a console isn't just the GPU, but also the CPU. Both are important and it's far and away cheapest and most convenient, when they come on one chip, from one manufacturer. Now that you've learned that, look at this simple graph:

Intel - great CPU, shitty GPU <- pricey
nVidia - shitty CPU, great GPU <- pricey
AMD - great CPU (Zen), great GPU <- reasonably priced

Nuff said. AMD isn't going anywhere when it comes to home consoles, as it has no viable competition whatsoever. It's the only company out there, that can offer both the CPU and GPU which perform well enough for home consoles' needs. The only reason Nintendo went with nVidia is because AMD has nothing to offer for the handheld market, while nVidia has the Tegra. But when it comes to homeconsoles, no company can compete with AMD. If Sony/MS went with nVidia GPU, what CPU would they put in the console? Tegra? That would be a joke of a console and an instantly lost generation for the company that went this way. AMD is the only company that brings to table all that's needed in one sexy package, nVidia can't compete even if it wanted to. The Switch being a handheld is a blessing that allowed them to remain present outside the PC market.