The Switch 2's super sluggish LCD screen is 10 times slower than a typical gaming monitor and 100 times slower than an OLED panel according to independent testing
The Switch 2's super sluggish LCD screen is 10 times slower than a typical gaming monitor and 100 times slower than an OLED panel according to independent testing
Switch 2's IPS display probably isn't using overdrive.
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.
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
Granted, all major gaming consoles do this now.
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.
I agree. There's no reason this new console shouldn't have the oled screen by default. Other than planned obsoletion.
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.
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.
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).
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
Nintendo: What! If we got better screens you would be complaining thst it cost even more!
Nintenblow! Next, they will try to brick their trading cards if you use them against their terms.
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.
I never played MK Wii because of the graphics. The game was just fun. IDGAF about graphics.