Nintendo Switch 2 Slammed for Poor Display—120 Hz With 30 FPS Response Times

[Hecate91]

Stop having fun goddamn you, can't you see the screen isn't good? Damn

/s

The fact that no one has noticed it until put under the microscope says everything that needs to be said - the screen is perfectly fine for what it is.

The screen has worse average response times than the sw1, displays with 5-8ms are cheap now but Nintendo probably used the cheapest display they could find. Also given because they just threw a sticker over the glass instead of a nice plastic cover makes it even more obvious they were being cheap. Nintendo fans defending this nonsense says a lot.
Edit- The sad thing is quite a few budget TV's have better response times, so once the console is connected to a tv the difference in performance would be noticeable.

 

[cucol]

pretty sure the switch 2 was originally priced at 579 or around that... but raw materials prices went up thats why they use the cheaper lcd screens... hate to think how much the oled is gonna cost when it comes out... im guessing $729..

as with hardware.. limitations with handheld mode battery life... cant put more powerful processors...

Then, you can buy a redmi note 14 phone with Oled 120hz screen at arround 150$, but nintendo will want 200$ just for the oled upgrade.

 

[sLowEnd]

Eh. The screen could be better, but it's not the end of the world the way it is.

My 2DS' screen was complete garbage even by the standards of when it came out, but I still had plenty of fun with it. In the case of the Switch/Switch 2, you aren't even stuck with using it if you don't like it. Just dock and connect to a display of your choice.

 

[dismuter]

As much as it pains the hardware geek in me to say that, the reality of the market is that the Switch 2 just needed to have good-enough hardware, for an exceptional game library. You're just witnessing the good-enough part.
I don't know if the game library will be exceptional, but for people who never owned a Switch, it kind of already is thanks to all the existing Switch titles, some of which are updated to run better on the Switch 2.

 

[JustBenching]

The screen has worse average response times than the sw1, displays with 5-8ms are cheap now but Nintendo probably used the cheapest display they could find. Also given because they just threw a sticker over the glass instead of a nice plastic cover makes it even more obvious they were being cheap. Nintendo fans defending this nonsense says a lot.
Edit- The sad thing is quite a few budget TV's have better response times, so once the console is connected to a tv the difference in performance would be noticeable.

And if that was the case people would have been complaining about response times before it was put under the microscope by df. That never happened, none had any issues with the display until 2 day ago. That says all that needs to be said.

Lol. I recall when I was gaming on 19" LCD Fujitsu Siemens that had 1280x1024 resolution and 22ms latency.
For that time it was technologically OK (display was from 2007 or 2008). But such latency now is disgusting.
They sell it for gaming. Anything above 8ms is problem for gaming, even at 5ms ghosting is quite noticeable.

Again, it if was quite noticeable it would have been noticed before being put under the microscope. Nobody noticed it though

 

[Dragokar]

Shut up and buy our new console, send more money.

We all know it doesn't really matter the quality, it's all vibes and aura and shit nowadays. Post truth world.

But you don't purchase it, Nintendo rents you the hardware to play or not the amazing stuff

 

[tpa-pr]

I have to wonder how many of us were (mostly-figuratively) born yesterday?

Anyone that's been into (handheld/console) gaming since the GameBoy-DS-> days should've already noticed the pattern:
Nintendo actively and purposefully 'gimps' first release hardware, leaving room for an 'S', 'lite', etc. revision.

I might be out of the loop, what did they gimp on the original Switch release model?

 

[Grimling]

Nintendo feels so evil to me! they always are cheeping out on hardware big time and then selling it astronomically overpriced, while planning to release a "fixed" version soon after everyone got the cheap stuff, to basically double the numbers in sells.
Then if you want to play your games on solid hardware, like a PC with emulation, they are coming after you like you are a criminal!
I will never buy anything from them!
GET LOST NINTENDO!

 

[bonehead123]

And so it begins...they got you (& your money), S..U..C..K..A's.......

Somehow, I knew that this scenario was forthcoming, as many companies, nOntendio included, have a very bad habit of over-hyping but not delivering on their wild-assed marketing claims for their products....

How many more times does this have to happen before people wise up & boycott these clowns, and any other mfgr that pulls this crap ?

And in a few months, after they gobble up all of the fool's money & all the bad press calms down, they will suddenly come out with the actual, real, finished console with an OLED screen and some other minor changes, and BOOM, they will get even more sucka's to hand over even more of their money....

 

[Hecate91]

And if that was the case people would have been complaining about response times before it was put under the microscope by df. That never happened, none had any issues with the display until 2 day ago. That says all that needs to be said.

It wasn't a problem until a few days ago because everyone was overhpying it praising Nintendo with "omg the screen is bigger" and hyping it up because it's an ngreedia powered console without really testing the screen itself for response time compared to the switch 1.

 

[BorisDG]

Apart from poor performance there is also the fact that screen is quite fragile and without its screen "protectors" it becomes a safety hazard.

Uh ok same with Switch OLED. That thing was introduced with that model, since was also glass screen. Nothing new.

 

[Grimling]

not only is this a cheap and slow screen on the switch 2, they also cheeped out on the controllers, and this after the old switch controllers had huge problems with drift etc
but no, Nintendo will have your extra-money for the fixed Hall Effect Sticks they will offer soon! and everyone has to upgrade. not to mention the new oled version they will release in 1-2 years.

 

[BorisDG]

I think most people here have no clue and are just hating like total 10-year-olds. It's known that LCDs don't use/run overdrive at all. Calm down, and let's see if it gets fixed via a firmware update, since it has garnered significant attention. No matter how cheap the screen is, I don't believe someone (here InnoLux) is manufacturing screens slower than those from eight years ago. And the controllers are not using HAL effect for a reason (magnets around the console), but how you know. Hate is N1.

 

[Rightness_1]

I'm sure the OLED version is coming for this or next Christmas, and that $30 OLED panel will add another $150 to the price. Just think, you will be able to buy an OLED Switch 2 with the specs of a 10 year old console for the low, low price of $600+. I love it!

 

[BorisDG]

I can guarantee you that OLED is not coming in the next 3 years. Even ASUS wasn't able to justify OLED screen with that specs for their $900+ device.

ASUS Explains Why the ROG Xbox Ally Doesn't Have an OLED Screen

ASUS has explained why the ROG Xbox Ally and ROG Xbox Ally X do not have an OLED screen. It's about variable refresh rate drawing more power.

wccftech.com

 

[Squared]

Reviewers said the screen looks a lot nicer than the original Switch and is possibly an upgrade over the Switch OLED display, with the most noticeable disadvantage being its blacks (as is normally the case when comparing LCD to OLED). It's not OLED, which means it'll last longer and won't bother people who are sensitive to screen flicker. Surely that's worth something.

For those waiting for the OLED model, the Switch release timeline may be relevant:

2017	Switch
2019	Switch Lite & Switch w/ die shrunk APU
2021	Switch OLED

 

[Denver]

That barely keeps 30fps stable anyway.
Then, It's not a real problem.

 

[BorisDG]

To be honest, no idea why people are prising the OLED. I own it since day 1 and I was never a big fan of it. There are few, but very serious (to me) issues with the screen, being cheap again.

1) Green tint/hue on darker colors (mostly gray)
2) BIG PWM (this is bigger issue than the slower LCD)
3) The gray colors (can be seen in the OS with dark theme) are grainy

The flicker is INSANE

https://imgur.com/a/VYBkCAv

 

[_roman_]

What I read over the years is the low quality build quality of nintendo.

I had a few switch in my hands. Nothing which I really like or want. Some of these are just lying around unused by the owner.

I think nintendo is in the quality class like razer and some other companies. May work for two years when you use it carefully.

 

[Crazybabe]

So are they doing MFG x4 with 2060 gpu?!

 

[kondamin]

Ok, does the target audience notice this and are there titles where it matters?

 

[rv8000]

Everyone I know who bought the switch 2 is having an absolute blast with it, and isn't getting dragged down with it's technical shortcomings because it's giving them great experiences.

Inevitable gap here for the OLED refresh. Hopefully they do respond to feedback and perhaps give users the option to run the display with overdrive/higher voltage to boost response times.

This, very much this.

My brother picked one up, I haven’t messed with it much but generally the screen looked decent. Color was fine, brightness was great, obviously not an OLED, but for playing on the go or comfortably around the house it’s fine.

I’ll probably get one once there are some good titles out (Metroid 4 most notably).

 

[sephiroth117]

The switch 2 keeps on getting more disappointing as an overpriced and underpowered console.
It's interesting how the sw2 display has worse latency than the sw1 display.

It has its fair share of issues but at its price and portability it has the expected power imho and I think developers and Nintendo are probably just starting to scratch the surface here

The issue is Nintendo being Nintendo, cheaping out on hall-effect sensors, lcd response time, putting a 10€ price tag on that welcome tour demo or 90€ on MK World, having gamekey cards being too prevalent for third parties etc

All those issues clouding the launch but performance and price tbh they are not really the biggest issues

On TPU people are enthusiasts but it’s unreasonable to expect a tsmc 4NP Blackwell tegra and an amoled from a Nintendo console. i wish it were the case but it’s important to tame our expectations with Nintendo

Frankly I love Mario Kart World and enjoying it, pretty sure it will be the case with DK and Metroid Prime 4 later this year

 

[Raiden85]

DF makes it out to be like it's a passive matrix LCD panel from the 90s. It’s fine, it's not an amazing LCD, but it's just fine. I do use OLED and VA, did use mini LED for a while as well as IPS a long time ago, so I'm used to different panel types, but again, the Switch 2’s LCD is fine from my own actual use. Way overblown issue as usual. But I do wish Nintendo didn't cheap out and went with OLED from the start and they could have avoided all of this crap.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Nintendo isn’t using any overdrive on this panel, or going as far as to undervolt it in some way to save on power. No way should you be able to get a modern panel that’s 120Hz with VRR and supports HDR (barely) with response times this slow. If this is the case, then that could be fixable in firmware but at the cost of some battery life. If they can tweak this in firmware, then it could be an option you could turn on or off, so you can pick between more battery and a slower panel, or worse battery and a much quicker panel.

Nintendo have always compromised on screen quality, the Switch OLED being the only exception. It took them about 14 years to add a bloody backlight to the GameBoy line! All because they wanted to save on power. It was one reason I preferred the Game Gear at the time; at least I could see what I was looking at in full colour even in the pitch black, without needing the power of the sun behind me.

£395 isn’t a lot of money these days, so if it added an extra £100 to the price for a high-quality OLED with proper HDR (1000+ nits) then so be it. You already had people complaining about the current price, which is ridiculous for the hardware you’re getting. People would still buy it in the tens of millions if it cost £495 for the base model. While they would still complain, it still would have sold in the tens of millions.

As for the performance, it’s been great. It’s not an underpowered console whatsoever for its small size and power usage. If anything was underpowered at launch, it was the original Switch. As for the screen durability, someone said here it’s fragile. You must be joking because JerryRigEverything literally hit the screen with a very heavy tool, and it took a good 50 hits before it finally shattered. Scratch resistance isn’t great even without that plastic screen protector over the glass, but the actual screen is a damn tank compared to a lot of other screens.

Skip to 11:40 for the screen durability test. I’d call that durable enough.

 

[JustBenching]

It wasn't a problem until a few days ago because everyone was overhpying it praising Nintendo with "omg the screen is bigger" and hyping it up because it's an ngreedia powered console without really testing the screen itself for response time compared to the switch 1.

But WHY would you NEED to test it? If it was bad you'd notice just by...using it. Having to put it into lab conditions means the screen is fine.

But congratulations on managing to bring up ngreedia in a nintendo topic. Don't you take days off?