Well, that might not be available with todays technology, but who knows what might be capable in 3-4 years. The new Tegra Xavier T194 is capable of pushing out 1.4 TFLOPS at FP32 (compared to Switch 384 GFLOPS in FP32 and the X1 chips full clock at 512 GFLOPS). That's almost a 3 times performance increase in four years. Give it another four years and we could potentially have another 3 times performance increase at ~4 TFLOPS. 

Of course TFLOPS don't mean everything, but with the fact that new architectures come easier programming capabilities it is possible that the next Switch could rival the PS4 Pro in terms of raw power. Besides, a 3-4 times increase in power isn't a generational leap. That would only be slightly larger than the jump from Gamecube to Wii, which was around a 2 times increase in terms of power. 

The Xavier is not meant for mobile hardware. It's a large mother board and meant for cars/trucks. It's not designed for something mobile with a battery.

Yeah for sure next gen is the time for Nintendo to iterate, not reinvent.

Agree with all the above, but no way there will be BotW 3 haha. After two BotW's the following Zelda game will no doubt be something different.

I'm sure they will make sure to have an incredible launch game after how much BotW helped the Switch's launch. I think Mario Kart 9 is a given for the launch, and either a Zelda or 3D Mario to go with it.

Power consumption and manufacturing node are factors here, though.

The Tegra X1 consumed 10 - 15 watts to deliver 500 - 600 GFLOPS and even then it had to be underclocked to fit on the Switch. The figure you're quoting probably refers to the 30W TDP option. The Xavier chip under similar power constraints is a 600 - 800 GFLOPS chip. Even when you factor in the IPC gains of the Volta microarchitecture, it's unlikely the average improvement for games would reach a 2 times increase.

Now, we do more or less know how the next three or so upcoming nodes will perform in terms of feature size and power consumption. How close to a PS4 Pro a ~3 nm or so Switch 2 would perform, though, remains to be seen considering we know nothing about future architectural improvements or which clocks or die size Nintendo would use to fit their power and cost constraints. 

But to assume it could match it certainly risks falling into the same optimistic trap a few members here fell into some four years ago, when they were sure the Tegra X1 could deliver a portable console at least matching the Xbox One. And we know how that one turned out.

Yes, the die size is roughly two and a half times that of the X1, but the power consumption is still in the 10-15W range. I'll concede, though. 

The Adreno 650 is supposed to be capable 1.2TFLOPS of theoretical performance (yet to release), and that GPU is made for the mobile market. The 640 gets around 1.04TFLOPS of performance (released this year), and the A12X from Apple is supposedly at 1.3 TFLOPS of performance (released last year). 

An Apple device is $800

I don't think it's exactly the same trap. In that case, people erroneously assumed that much quoted 1 TFLOP of FP16 performance was going to be a match for the Xbox One because they didn't understand what that performance indicator meant. In reality it was always going to be around half the performance of the Xbox One at the very least, and since it was underclocked we know that it's a bit less than that even. 

What I AM falling for, however, is the assumption that mobile technology will improve at approximately the same rate over the next 4 years when indicators show that performance increases year over year are reducing (though more for the PC GPU market than the mobile market). But it's all speculation at this point and, you're right, I am being a bit too optimistic. I think it COULD hit PS4 Pro performance, but WILL it? Probably not. Nintendo hasn't been known for pushing the envelope in graphical performance in 19 years. The Switch is the most "beastly" thing they've made since the Gamecube, and it's only a powerful device when taken into account it's price point and portability. They'd rather make a large profit off the Switch 2 than they would play the power game.

Yes, it is. Apple also marks up their prices heavily. Some phones using the Adreno 640 run as low as $500, though. We are also talking about four years from now and not currently. 

"The new Tegra Xavier T194 is capable of pushing out 1.4 TFLOPS at FP32"

That uses ~30watts of power to do so, which is fine, when docked.
Yes thats more or less what I've been saying.

When docked, a Switch 2 will likely be around where the base PS4 is at now.

Thats Qualcomm..... not nvidia..  However that GPU is crowned as the "most effecient graphics core, in the world" (currently).
That wouldnt be a bad place to start, Nintendo could drop nvidia, and go ask Qualcomm to make them a chip for Switch 2.

However
1) Adreno 650 is only 950 Gflops FP32.
2) Its Gtex/sec, ROPs performance, Memory Bandwidth are all like half of a Xbox One's.

^ however thats still impressive as all hell for just ~6watts or so of power consumption from the chip.

They could probably make a chip rated for 15-20watts that could be PS4 level.
Which is nuts, when you consider PS4 was like ~130watts when it released.

I couldnt find any numbers for the Apple A12X.... so meh, no idea.
However doubt useing apple chips would be cheap for nintendo, or make much sense so.... its a non issue.