There is no guarantee of that even if they did stick with nVidia.

Going from Maxwell to Ampere is a significant one.
Going from ARM A57 to ARM A78 is also a night and day difference.

There is a reason why Nintendo didn't opt for Tegra X2 at 16nm for the chip shrink, but rather got nVidia to do it to the older Tegra X1... And they are almost identical chips except on the GPU side of the equation (which are almost identical being Maxwell vs Pascal.)
Nintendo is using some extremely low level abstraction to get as much out of the Switch as possible... And some of the games are absolutely showing that, but it does potentially bring issues bringing that code forwards to newer hardware.

Going from Maxwell to Ampere will mean a new GPU instruction set, just like how AMD went from VLIW to GCN to RDNA was all new instruction sets every time. (With extra extensions/variations with parts like Vega and Rapid Packed Math)
But GPU's are abstracted in such a way on the PC where it's not an issue... On a console, that has not always historically been the case. - As games are sometimes built to the metal.

Sony and Microsoft have migrated to monolithic software stacks these days where they can side-step those issues (I.E. They learned a few PC tricks), plus they have a few hooks in the software stacks so they can emulate/abstract certain functions depending on the code that is being run. - Not saying Nintendo won't do this approach, but they tend not to have a very flexible OS in the Switch, it's pretty bare bones.

Apple M would be a brilliant chip, expensive, but brilliant.

Don't try and bait me with irrelevant TFlops. :P

There is still a semiconductor shortage.

They *could* take Tegra X2 and increase the Switch's performance by 50% with relative ease... It would also be built at the same 16nm process as the current Tegra, so the logistics of competing on a more constrained process is not going to be difficult as they have an idea of quantities they can obtain as-is.

Atlan. And nVidia revealed it last year at a GPU technology conference.
We know it's going to use the new ARM A715 cores, with variable length vector extensions, boosted SIMD.. And will use nVidia's Ada Lovelace GPU architecture.

Other aspects like LPDDR5X support just makes blatant sense for the release time frame... And will likely re-use the same 256bit bus... So probably reach about 256GB/s of memory bandwidth.
But a handheld would likely use a cutback memory bus for battery life concerns, so probably along the lines of 128bit/128GB/s which is perfect for targeting 1080P.

15-35W mark is where modern processors are at their most efficient (Due to fabrication characteristics dictating some design rules oddly enough).
Rembrandt can suck down about 15w and achieve 1.9Ghz on all 8 Core/16 Threads.
At 20w you start to look at 2.5Ghz... And from there efficiency starts to decline.

That is just all the CPU cores loaded.
At 20w you will start to look at 1.8ghz with all 16 threads loaded and the GPU pegged at the same time.

But you can cut that CPU in half and only have 2/3rds of the CPU functional... And you start to get a very potent and energy efficient chip.

For a handheld, you probably dont need anymore than 4x competent CPU cores... Or maybe even 5 if you wish to dedicate one to the OS/Background so you can have voice/video chat.

Nintendo always in handhelds is BC at least 1 gen.

Whatever chip is weaker. Nintendo hasn't cared about power for decades. You would think people would have figured this out by now.

Nintendo's BC solutions have typically consisted of "let's take the old chip and put it in the new product". GBA had an ARM7 and a the same Sharp CPU the GB and GBC had for backwards compatibility. The DS had two CPUs, one ARM9 and then the same ARM7, but with twice the clock frequency. The 3DS had an ARM11 with, you guessed it, an ARM9 with twice the clock frequency. 

The issue is that there was a reason for all of these consoles to utilize multiple CPUs. The GBA used it for *some* sound processing, and the DS/3DS used it for rendering multiple screens. But the Switch is much more expensive than those products both at launch and currently to manufacture. Plus, cramming in another chip without much purpose aside from BC would almost double the size of the console for little worth. 

Not saying there won't be BC. I sure hope there is...but we are in uncharted territory for Nintendo. They'll have to find a way to incorporate compatibility without relying on native hardware.

Oh, I'm not saying they would go as low as 8GB for a new console in 2024. What I'm saying is that even the *weakest* orin chip has way too much power for Nintendo to use it for a Switch pro (or Switch V3 if you will)

The next gen switch will most likely use Orin soc as Nintendo has a 10 year partnership with Nvidia so Nintendo using an amd apu is out of the question.

There's has been numerous rumors swirling around on when the next gen switch will release and a 2024/5 is a good guess but I got a feeling the next gen switch will release much sooner than people think.

The rumor from 2021 where nvidia has discontinued the tegra x1 line seems to be true as Nvidia has been gearing up production of the orin soc for mass sales. We already know from the Nvidia leaks that there is a handheld device that will be using DLSS 2.2 through data leaks. ( https://nintendoeverything.com/nvidia-leak-may-hint-at-new-switch-nintendo-system/ ).


We also have seen large delays on currently announced switch games, Legend of Zelda Breath of the wild 2 and Metroid prime 4 (been restarted 2 already). As for BOTW2 we have had some teaser trailers a couple years back but since then it's been radio silent on a release date and news on the games. There also has been some rumors going around that Nintendo also requested 3rd party developers to prepare 4k textures for the next gen switch that's dated back in 2021.



I would give moore's law is dead a view because he has some insider information that he is willing to share at this moment in regards of the next gen switch as well.
https://youtu.be/qo6CCkPcilY?t=7890

Just be careful with Youtube. A lot of it is just opinionated fluff, rather than facts backed by thorough research and empirical evidence.

I remember some of the "insider info" before the Switch launched, some of the hardware being speculated upon was comical.
We have been around this playground more than once now.

I'll have to find the article again, but Zen3+ is remarkably efficient even at locked consumption. While they used a 6800HS (U-series weren't out yet), CPU speeds dropped only marginally between 25W and 15W, 500 Mhz total at worst. Zen 3+ sweet spot seems to be around 2.3Ghz, from there lowering clock speeds only slightly lowers power consumption. At that clock speed, the CPU can consume less than 1.8W per core, so 8c/8t would consume less than 15W at that locked clock speed. Going down to 2 Ghz would lower it to a bit under 1.3W per core without hyperthreading, so roughly 10W for the CPU part on that clock speed. With 6 cores we're at roughly 7.5W.

While this is still too high, going 5nm on that design should be able to drop the power consumption of the CPU part alone to less than 5W on a 6c/6t design. This could make Rembrandt viable for a handheld design with a cut-down GPU with 6-8 CU without needing to become nearly as heavy as the steam deck yet having better battery life.

I don't understand how it seems to be true that Nvidia discontinued the Tegra X1 line. Nintendo is still manufacturing Switch units en masse. Discontinuing that product would foolishly be flushing money down the toilet. 

In addition, Nvidia has listed that the Jetson Nano line, which uses a Tegra X1, will still be available until 2025. So it's actually verifiably false that they are discontinuing the product currently. It has, at least, three more years on the market.