They don't really even have to use the X2 for extra power. They can merely use it for the die shrink and better battery (which could in turn allow a Switch model to run at full docked mode even when portable though). 

The X2 IS the 16nm variant of the X1. It just happens to also have a higher power mode to go with it. 

That doesn't radically make it that much more expensive. In fact at some point likely it's going to cost Nintendo more money to keep using the 20nm Tegra X1 because no one is going to be using the 20nm node at all.

I also question exactly what R&D cost Nintendo really spent here ... this is a stock Tegra X1 ... a chip that was designed and finished two years ago by Nvidia. Nintendo didn't have anything to do with it other than slapping it into their box. The R&D costs for the Switch are likely largely invested into those Joycons, the chip is just a standard chip. This probably is from an R&D POV one of the cheapest systems Nintendo has ever made. 

Double post.

I perfectly understand concept, and actually I was on one first here that predicted this concept.

Comparison with PS4 Slim or XB1 Slim doesn't make any sense because you talking about bigger Switch not smaller. Thats why 3DS XL is $200 while regular 3DS is $150. Pro was released 3 years after PS4 launch, not one year after launch, so bad comparison again. Same goes for iPhone and Samsung phones comparisons, because you talking about phones that have yearly or earlier upgrades of models.

Its not point if Nintendo can do that, point why Nintendo would do that so fast. You again totaly ignoring clear fact that there is no need for XL Switch model so fast when Switch already have big screen for handheld gaming console, while on other hand there will be huge need for smaller/cheaper Switch when 3DS dies. And like I wrote above, we had infos that Nvidia gave great offer Nintendo with X1 chips and that was one of reason why Nintendo went with Nvidia for Switch, maybe we talking about tens of millions X1 chips for Switch.

Of Course that inflation and price cuts are things, but you talking about next year, not something in around 3-4 years. At end of next year you cant have regular Switch for $150-200, but you could have Switch Mini/Pocket for that price that would practically replace 3DS/3DSXL on market.

Nintendo does release revisions very fast ... 3DS XL came very early in the product cycle. Beyond that I think the Switch was actually planned for fall 2016, they missed it just because of software, but the hardware is old, so much so that there's already the successor chip (Tegra X2) available. 

This was not the case with the PS4/XB1, there was no 16nm variant of those chips available for mass production in 2013, 28nm was what they had to choose because there was no other choice. 

I'm actually not talking about a "bigger Switch" is size, I'm saying the screen could be made a bit bigger ... but that's not going to radically make it cost $100 more or something. LCD screens are cheap these days, especially since Nintendo is not exactly using things like high end Retina type displays. They are using displays that may as well be on budget $120 Chinese tablets. 

More models make Nintendo more money too. That's just how it goes ... like I said between 2003-2014 they released 11 different portable models in 11 years. They do that because it makes them money. Not because they're on some search for the "perfect SKU" ... that's not the goal. There is no "perfect SKU". Different users have different needs, your goal as a company is to exploit that and make money. 

There will be 4, 5 different Switch models before the 2022 ends, quite possibily even more to be honest. You will see a ton of different versions. 

I don't even think Nintendo is "just thinking" about this stuff. If you could walk into their R&D lab right now, I'd bet money you would see physical, actual playable Switch models, some with bigger displays, some with the Tegra X2 already inside of them. These already exist, I'd bet money on it, their R&D team was done with what we're playing today ages ago in design terms. They've likely had access to the X2 silicon since last year easily and probably the first thing they did was put that chip into the existing Switch chasis and start playing around with it. 

Mobile chip tech also scales much, much faster in cost than desktop components (like what Sony/MS use). Every iPhone is like double the previous one without increasing in price like every 12-14 months. This is a whole different ball game folkes. 

general rule which is not always followed is 3 year minimum to NOT BURN EARLY ADOPTERS. who your company relies on.

So its simple. in 3 years the Switch Pro with Tegra 3.

and 2 more years new switch 2. with tegra 4.

These chips are getting ordered in very high numbers, the more the cheaper. That's one of the reasons why consoles get cheaper over time, even without a shrink the chips get cheaper. To switch (ha!) out the chip that soon would make it pretty expensive, not to mention that there are often multi-year contracts involved.

Using the X2 to save power would in theory work, but in practice it's actually not so sure. Every chip has it's sweet spot in terms of power consumption. Nintendo has clocked the Switch fairly low below the Tegra X1's original clock speed in handheld mode. Pascal on the other hand, is meant to run at higher clock speeds. So clocking so far down to mach the X1's performance could actually be counterproductive and the gains basically nil since if you clock below the sweet spot the gains in consumtion gets too much outstipped by the loss of calculating power, sometimes so much that it actually reverses the process entirely.

Also, matching the power exactly is very difficult to do when such changes are done. That's the reason why the Xbox ONE S is slightly faster than the original XBO, to make sure the architektonical changes don't drag some game's performances down when they are programmed too close to metal to make their fullest out of the new chip. In case of the switch, that could result in the X2 needing a slightly higher clock speed than the X1, making the consumption point mostly moot.

It's mostly a stock Tegra X1, with 2 small changes: In the stock Tegra, the GPU isn't supposed to switch it's speed between such states, so these needed to be implemented (I think a microcode update could do this already). The other thing is that the 4 low power cortex A53 cores got completly deactivated, probably by cutting all their electric contacts to avoid them consuming any power.

R&D for a console doesn't mostly go into the processor, it's actually one of the cheapest things in console R&D, even if it's a (semi-)custom chip. The reason for this is that the console developer just asks the chip maker to build a chip to their needs and rough specifications, and it's up to them to come with a design the console maker accepts. it's also one of the aforementioned reasons why the chips get cheaper over time even without a die shrink, the first batches have the development costs from the chipmaker in them. In the case of the switch, these should be low (and the Tegra ain't really expensive to begin with), so there won't be too much of a drop here

The Tegra X2 is not much more expensive than the X1 I don't think. The Jetson X2 is the same cost the Jetson X1 was for the last two years.

It's simply technology scaling down in cost, and that's not magically exclusive to the chips Apple is using either.

Nintendo more likely has a certain period of time they need to use the X1 due to a contractual agreement ... possibily, but I don't think it has anything to do with cost.

I would bet money right this very second there are Nintendo Switch units in Nintendo's R&D lab that have the Tegra X2 processor inside of them, already running.

Nintendo is actually probably already talking to Nvidia about the Tegra Xavier chip for the Switch successor, they likely already know the X2 inside out and it's just a matter of time before they switch over to that. Xavier is actually probably what Nintendo's R&D is right now looking most at and spending their days focused on.

I'm not sure the X1 is even that cost efficient to be honest, it's using a 20nm manufacturing node, which is a very niche manufacturing process. The 16nm that the Tegra X2 uses is much, much, much more mainstream, so eventually it may become actually cheaper for Nintendo to use an X2 instead of an X1. 

Yes, Nintendo released versions of DS and 3DS very fast because there were need for that, because DS and 3DS has relatively small screens on launch, while Switch already has big screen on launch, that actually much bigger than 3DS XL screen.

Comparisons with PS4Slim/XB1Slim (espacily for Scorpio/Pro) doesnt make any sense, beuse XL versions in Nintendo case are always more expensive than regular version.

You again still missing main point that I wrote about XL model of Switch so fast: "I dont see in any case XL version so soon beacsue there is no need for bigger and more expnasive Switch so soon, when fact is that Switch already has huge screen for handheld gaming console and huge difference compared to 3DS XLs 4.9" screen or any previous handheld, and when Switch already has price of $300. Compared to that when 3DS XL was launch had regular 3DS had screen of just 3.5" and regular 3DS had price point of $170, so totally made sense to release so fast bigger and more expansive 3DS, but there is no same point with Switch because like I wrote Switch already has big screen and already has much higher price point. Nintendo could make XL in 2018. but there is no or point for that, but they will definitely need smaller, cheaper Switch when 3DS dies".

Also you dont know how good deal Nvidia gave Nintendo for X1 chips (buy infos they gave them very good deal) and how many X1 chips Nintendo has. Most likely eventually Nintendo will move on Tegra X2, but I dont see that next year.

I agree that Switch will have multiple hardwares that will be part of platform, but I am certain we will not have XL version next year and probably not even in 2019.

I wasn't talking about HW revisions, just the number of platforms.
In 2012, Nintendo only had two machines, revisions came with time. The same can happen in the years to come.

It isn't just Nintendo PR, it's what the machine does and how people perceive it: home console and handheld in one.
A machine that only does part of it will be seen as an inferior product.

Yes, they won't have that low price point anytime soon and at the same time, will they actually needed it if the machine/machines sell very well?
People payed 400$ for a PS4 in droves when no one expected it due to the price; Sony sold 50 something million consoles with prices averaging above 300$. Will they need to lower the price to make people buy one. I don't think so.

If the price is good and the machine is appealing, people are more than willing to give in and pay more.

Play on the go will not make games possible on the platform nor will it eliminate the problems with the ports it can get - again, if they can get.
Nintendo needs to give developers a machine that can get their games without too much troube, otherwise we will see a Wii U situation all over again: even before the console was released, only a few developers were willing to bet on it.
I get that if the console sells, developers will try harder, but i don't think the end result will be good, and if it's not good, consumers will buy that 3rd party game on XB or PS.

I think you'll have both. A smaller model with bezels removed will basically replace the current 20nm model. It'll be somewhat smaller and better on battery. 

And they'll have a version with a larger screen and perhaps full docked performance even in undocked mode, this will "XL" but actually won't be any bigger than the current Switch. 

The bezels on the current Switch let them manipulate the size easily. And both the above models I think probably exist right now in Nintendo's R&D. They are just weighing when they want to release them, probably for the 2018 fiscal year, they are going to want a boost in sales. Also larger screen revisions sell better than smaller ones, so if sales are the priority (and they obviously are), guess which one will take priority. 

Don't be so sure Nintendo is in a huge rush to get back to the 3DS market ... the 3DS quite honestly has been a bit of a sales dissapointment the last 3 years mainly salvaged by a bump from the Pokemon Go craze, but aside from that that form factor was really, really looking tired. 

I think Nintendo is fine dropping the price on the Switch, they probably could do that even today without much fuss. But I don't think they're in as mad of a rush to get back to clamshell style portables as some Nintendo traditionalists think. Part and parcel *why* the Switch has been so positively received to date IMO is because of the form factor, if it was just a clamshell with a Tegra shoved into it, I really don't think it would be generating anywhere near the same buzz right now. It would just be more of the same ol', same ol'. 

If Switch continues to sell reasonably well, I think Nintendo is going to grow more and more confident in this form factor and let go of the DS/3DS era in many ways altogether, just like Game Boy and many of the "brand rules" of the Game Boy (ie: Game Boy can't cost more than $99) went bye-bye. 

By 2018 anyways, just one model of Switch is going to be awfully lonely, 3DS will likely be done by then, and Wii U obviously compeltely gone already basically. So two new models for 2018 I think works fine, it also lets them basically dump the current 20nm model which is something they likely will want to do as time goes on anyway and also have another second new model, which they are going to want to boost sales with.