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!?
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:
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
Nintenblow! Next, they will try to brick their trading cards if you use them against their terms.
Nintendo: What! If we got better screens you would be complaining thst it cost even more!
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).
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.
... it's a handheld ...
all 26 comments