I actually disagree regarding a linear relationship between power and quality; I thought Nintendo's output was better on Wii than Wii U, and better on SNES/N64 than Gamecube.

That said, I do think it's likely we'll get an updated Switch in a few years along the lines of the New 3DS or PS4 Pro.

Output is relative to what they chose to make, not due to the hardware. 

Super Mario Galaxy would be a better game on Wii U hardware than it would be on 3DS or Wii hardware. 

Better hardware just makes good developers that much better. 

All the stuff we've been sold over the years as Nintendo fans as far as being anti-technology has generally turned out in the long run to be a bunch of bunk. CD/optical media was a good thing (also not paying $80 for games was nice too). But we were told Nintendo didn't need CD-ROM, it was bad, games were big enough on the N64, etc. etc. etc.

Online play? It's bad, Nintendo doesn't need it, wouldn't you rather play in the same room? Etc. etc. etc.

HD graphics are bad, you'll go bankrupt if you make HD games, you can be more innovative with SD graphics ... load of bunk. Nintendo games are wonderful in HD with the huge upgrades in things like physics engines, level scope, animation, etc. that comes with next gen HD. The only bad thing is it took so long for them to get there. 

But 3D World in HD wasn't as good as Mario Galaxy in SD, Tropical Freeze wasn't as good as Retro's SD Metroid games, Xenoblade X wasn't as good as the Wii one, etc. As far as I am concerned the strength of Nintendo's hardware does not correlate linearly with the quality of their software.

This is just design choice. I think 3D World obviously is trying to cater to the 4-player NSMB crowd, that's not a flaw in the Wii U hardware. 

Comparing DKC to Metroid is obviously apples to oranges too, DKC: TF is a very, very good game. 

Have you ever played a Nintendo game and said "wow, this is good, but it'd be even better if you put in on the last generation Nintendo hardware and reduced the visual quality and scope of the game to do so!". 

I doubt it. 

I compare them cos they are the work of the same studio.

And of course not, but I have on numerous occasions played Nintendo games and thought "this isn't as good as its predecessors on older hardware".

More processing power is nice and all, but in my opinion it doesn't automatically mean better games. SNES was less than 1% as powerful as Wii U but to my mind it's the SNES that has the better library.

Thread like this makes me think that Switch user already feel the outdatedness of the Switch and already wants a more powerful version.

Not really, it's more about the exciting pipeline of products Nvidia can offer Nintendo.

The system is pretty solid right now for what it is, that doesn't mean it can't improve in the future. The concept is good, Nintendo just needs to stay ahead of the curve. 

It's kinda like the PSP, which I know some people rag on, but 80 million units with Sony half asleep during the later years of its life is fairly impressive, it also sold 10 million units in 10 months ... sales almost as fast as the Wii and PS4 (those were a month quicker). 

What happened with the PSP though IMO is when it launched in 2004 it was really quite high end and people appreciated that, but by 2008 when PS3/360 were everywhere, it felt really dated in terms of its central appeal of offering console-like games on the go. There was too huge of a gap and I think interest in the system started to fade outside of Japan where it got lucky with the Monster Hunter craze coming out of nowhere. 

I think hardware refreshes are just a fact of life in the industry now too. People are going to get used to it. It makes the companies more money anyway. 

Not to mention it's a theoretical number anyway.

The Tegra X2/Pascal should be roughly 50% faster than X1/Maxwell. Maybe a little more.

Xavier we don't have benchmarks for yet. Xavier has doubled the functional units over Tegra X2/Pascal.
But the real kicker is... What are the clocks?
If the clocks are lower than the Pascal based Tegra we might only see another 50% gain.

Or we could see a 150% gain. We don't know yet.

Nvidia is saying one Tegra Xavier chip at matches the Drive PX2, which is 2 Tegra X2s + 2 Pascal based GPUs (so 4 processors total) at 8 TFLOPS. 

The Tegra drive can run at a higher TDP's though.

I don't doubt that Xavier will have a significant performance advantage. We just don't know how much yet. That's all.