Comparison to mobile displays (those you can plug via USB-C/HDMI) would be interesting. Gaming display is a entirely different category, says nothing about the product.
Nintenblow! Next, they will try to brick their trading cards if you use them against their terms.
… it’s a handheld …
I have a Chinese handheld with a 1080p oled display that doesn’t ghost.
refresh rates stay in the 60fps.
cost me $400.
it plays all my Roms, emulators, videos, browsing, it even plays steam remote beautifully.
I’ll never buy another Nintendo again.
I never played MK Wii because of the graphics. The game was just fun. IDGAF about graphics.
So basically, the news here is that the switch 2 screen is better than the switch 1 at 17ms vs 21ms, except for one singular tester that claims 30+, which no other independent tester collaborates… And then they go and compare it to screens that cost multiple times the entire switch’s cost… And this is presented as a bad thing?
Are you kidding me rn
My understanding is it’s worse than the switch 1 and basically every other modern handheld from the PSP onward.
My understanding is that most testers found it’s about 4ms better than the switch 1, and the only tester that found it worse refuses to actually outline their methodology, and nobody can reproduce the 30ms+ number.
Lol, I get it but comparing the Switch 2’s tiny screen to €600-2000 OLED gaming monitors is fucking pointless (it’s where the 100 times slower comes from).
Pretty sure phones have better screen responsiveness
It’s also terrible compared to the first switch’s screen though.
Except other testers found it to be ~4ms faster than the switch 1, in tests where they actually give their methodology.
Monitors unboxed just went “yeah it’s 30+ms, source: trust me bro”
Yeah it’s not good, it’s just a weird thing to put in the headline. It’s like comparing a new hatchback with its competition, but then also say it’s slower than the newest Ferrari. I think that should be a given as it’s a fraction of the price
They’ll release a “New!” version in a year with an improved screen as one of its bullet points, in a bid to get you to buy it again. And people will. See also:
- The Gameboy Advance SP/New SP
- The DS/DS Lite
- 3DS/New 3DS
- The Switch/Switch OLED
I agree. There’s no reason this new console shouldn’t have the oled screen by default. Other than planned obsoletion.
New 3DS was actually a pretty huge upgrade over the original. Despite the name, it was effectively the next generation of the console. Or at the very least a half-generation.
Granted, all major gaming consoles do this now.
Nintendo thinks consumers are stupid… And they are so…
It’s a question of use-case and target group.
Pvp enthusiasts will see this refresh rate as a horror.
Singleplayer gamers and casuals and families won’t ever notice. And that’s far more nintendo’s target group.
Nintendo: What! If we got better screens you would be complaining thst it cost even more!
Our first data point is Monitors Unboxed. They found the Switch 2 returned an average pixel response time of 33 ms at 60 Hz.
Jesus Christ Nintendo. That’s absolutely horrendous. But on the plus side I’m glad the screen undervolting let you improve the battery life to an impressive
*checks notes*two hours!?all for the power of selling the device at profit and not at a loss.
when currently last gen pc handheld like the lenovo legion go is being sold at 500$ and has both a higher fresh rate resolution and 20ms pixel response time conpared to the switch 2s 33ms.
So the display can’t actually drive the pixels fast enough to exceed 30fps? Is that what that means?
I assume this means that at 60fps every frame will be delivered about 2 frames too late everytime.
No, that about 80 fps is the maximum this display allows. And that you get a lot of smearing.
Yikes. I feel bad for anyone playing street fighter 6 on the switch.
