fallingdove
Member
The PSP is 20 years old though and cost $200 less than the S2.
Switch 2 Display Tested. Afterimage is due to "incredibly slow" response time
- Thread starter Topher
- Start date
//DEVIL//
Member
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. Because I am sensitive to smearing . It's very obvious in scrolling text too. I had an LCD monitor couple of years ago that had that shit and it drove me crazy I sold it for a loss big time just so I don't see it in front of my face . But I haven't noticed this issue with my switch .Based on the responses in this thread, it sounds like some screens might have it worse than others. I'm not sure how anyone could not notice it or say it's not that bad. It's like someone saying they can't see the difference between 30fps and 60fps.
The only games I have are bayonetta 3. Mario kart world and fast fusion. None of them I was able to see any sort of ghosting even if a little
I don't want to buy sonic just for the sake of testing and I am not an online with Nintendo . Is there a demo or something for a sonic game I can test ? Is this the only game people can see the ghosting ?
Last edited:
Neff
Member
It certainly benefits from a bit of careful calibration. Too dark and the colours are unimpressive. Too bright and the contrast turns to balls.
I'm not falling for the OLED meme again, mine looked like shit. My OG Switch had better PQ, as does my Switch 2.
Ceadeus
Member
Yes but it was top of the line at that time and 20 yrs ago which mean the price wouldn't be the same today.
newtypepilot
Member
don't worry, folks. A fix is coming in about 2 to 3 years, when you can purchase Switch 2 OLED, for the low low price of $599!!!
You gotta suffer with a "good crisp image" like the rest of us. It's tough but someone's got to do it.
Fess
Member
I doubt that those things has ever been said by the same person.No vrr while docked
"I dont care I use it as handheld"
Screen is really slow
"I dont care I always use it docked"
Nintendo fanboys are the worst
Trilobit
Absolutely Cozy
This reminds me of the iPad Mini 6 jelly scrolling debacle. Some claimed that they didn't see it and even filmed their displays and it was wildly obvious it was there. So some things are just not visible to all people. I'm a bit more sensitive so I'll probably wait for the updated S2 model.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Looking at that graph. If i play on my tv and then play on the handheld ....my latency is 35 times more for the handheld screen.
That's wild.
I hope they make a refresh. Nintendo should be shamed of that screen.
That's wild.
I hope they make a refresh. Nintendo should be shamed of that screen.
Madserb2023
Member
This is becoming the new you can't see above 30fps. Maybe there are people due to eye and brain differences can't see ghosting, but for most people it is likely due to not knowing any difference. I used to play games at sub 480p at 20fps on the N64 and was fine with it at the time. Not now of course. I have used screens with less than 1ms response times for so long, because even before OLEDs I used only plasma TVs that I am just used to a certain kind of clarity in motion. An image that blurs when moving for some people is just how all games have ever looked to them so they don't even know what ghosting is. Due to false advertisement a lot of people have never actually seen HDR as most cheap HDR TVs can't even do it. So the HDR on the switch is how it always looks.
Lupin3
Targeting terrorists with a D-Pad
People who can't see the jelly scroll on the Mini should hand in their drivers license asap.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
iPad has a 120 Hz OLED with variable refresh rate and real strong HDR at up to 12.9'' in size, so does the iPhone (both at a muuuuch higher pixel density too), likely many Android phones do too…
Then again HDR in the current Switch 2 screen does not really work (making colours more washed out) and most games right now do not have VRR working (not even supported in TV mode), and 120 Hz for a gaming handheld is a good specs sheet number but with the kind of ghosting the screen has it is not that important unfortunately…
Last edited:
nnytk
Member
Weird to me that Nintendo has a handheld-only version of the Switch (the Lite), but never released a home-only version.
I've never used my Switch on the go — it's basically a home console for me. I can't be the only one. So I don't get why the Switch 2 isn't leaning into two clear SKUs: one portable, one made to stay put. Hardware-wise, that would make both versions potentially cheaper and more efficient — each built for a specific purpose.
They could've even dropped the "Switch" name and gone with something like Ultra Nintendo and Ultra Nintendo Portable. Bit late for that now, I guess.
I've never used my Switch on the go — it's basically a home console for me. I can't be the only one. So I don't get why the Switch 2 isn't leaning into two clear SKUs: one portable, one made to stay put. Hardware-wise, that would make both versions potentially cheaper and more efficient — each built for a specific purpose.
They could've even dropped the "Switch" name and gone with something like Ultra Nintendo and Ultra Nintendo Portable. Bit late for that now, I guess.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
It is easier to digest when the consoles they made were cheaper. Let's not joke about when the price was announced a lot of these features were thrown out to justify it… now, well they do not matter and people should know better
…
Boneless
Member
Robb
Gold Member
Nintendo has provided statistics on usage in the past and iirc <20% of users played their Switch (1) primarily in "TV-mode".
The remaining >80% were "handheld/tabletop mode" or "hybrid (both)", with handheld being >30%.
Given that we've seen that the Switch Lite is by far the worst selling SKU (which makes sense given these statistics), a TV-only SKU would do even worse, which I guess is why they haven't made one.
I wouldn't mind seeing a SKU like that myself though.
Last edited:
Fortuneelsewhere
Member
Double standards.. imagine if this was from Sony or X box…
DonkeyPunchJr
World’s Biggest Weeb
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo got a killer deal on some surplus tablet screens that their supplier was trying to get rid of, so they designed Switch 2 gen 1 around that. It would be a very Nintendo thing to do.
IIRC that's basically what happened with the Switch 1 and the Tegra X1 chip.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
A lot of people will see it, some may not know any better or are in love with the games and game updates (fair), but with a rather significant price bump and a nearly useless tentpole feature (HDR in portable mode… 400 nits peak and no dimming zones) it is what it is
, not sure why for Nintendo the standard needs to be that much lower…In not a single spec / actual result the screen should be worse than the 8 years old OG Switch 1.
Trilobit
Absolutely Cozy
Same ol G
Member
As i said this means nothing to me it doesn't impact my enjoyment.A lot of people will see it, some may not know any better or are in love with the games and game updates (fair), but with a rather significant price bump and a nearly useless tentpole feature (HDR in portable mode… 400 nits peak and no dimming zones) it is what it is
In not a single spec / actual result the screen should be worse than the 8 years old OG Switch 1.
Also stuff like 400 nits and dimming zones, is that something the average user is bothered by or just something people wish the screen supported.
Same ol G
Member
I'm really happy i'm not bothered by this stuff, it must be terrible to see ghosting everywhere.
Emedan
Member
Yeah Im in the same camp. I played and enjoyed the N64 - that some "smooth" 15FPS gaming. I think people are too spoiled today.
SamuraiEdge
Member
I'm glad I only play in docked only but sheeesh.
Madserb2023
Member
Not necessarily. Depends if you know what it is. Does the background look as crisp in motion as it is when its still because that's what you are looking for. Will have noticed it in every game by now if you could see it. Its like input lag or even slow down. I have met people who will play a game that goes from 20 to 30fps every 10 seconds and when I have said how do you play it with such slow down, they respond with what's slow down. People are only now complaining about games being 30fps because most people have experience 60fps now. Wasn't that long ago that there was no difference between 30 and 60 according to people on here.
Robb
Gold Member
We've had loads of public preview events prior to launch where people have brought SteamDecks, Switch (1) OLED's etc. etc. with them to do comparisons with the Switch 2 and they've been very positive.
It's only now that the actual specs are trickling out it's turning negative.
So I think the answer is pretty obvious. Most do not (and have not) notice(d) this stuff in real world usage, even when they have another device right next to them.
But still, I, at least, want to get my money's worth and something future proof. Even if some stuff are not super noticeable right now, who knows where we are in year or two when more demanding stuff is coming out and frames start to dip to sub 30fps instead of 60/120fps etc. etc.
Last edited:
BlackTron
Member
You probably got this from me because I mentioned using Sonic. It just seemed like an ideal game to use and it was ready on both switches to test at the same time.
I'm wondering if I got lucky in the mused "panel lottery" because I had to resort to trying to test with a game like that to begin with. It still wasn't obvious, I had to use the game like a tool running both at the same time repeating the same scenario (using a springboard to make the screen keep scrolling in the same place) and squint to tell how the 2 screen was any slower.
And I'm extremely sensitive to ghosting in old lcd panels. When one guy said it was like the first one he used with his 360 I balked. Like do we really have the same thing or is there a panel lottery? Or are we just kinda dogpiling on the "in" thing?
I can believe they have many sources of screens, after all it's Nintendo and they've been stockpiling for many months in and for many countries, but man 360 bad really?
I think that if you have such a hard problem seeing the ghosting you shouldn't need to buy a game just to tell whether it's there, it just means it isn't an issue.
Von Hugh
Member
Same ol G
Member
I think this is the most important part, the general public won't notice as already been proven.
If you have to perform benchmark tests to point this out maybe it isn't as much of a problem as some make it out to be.
Zathalus
Member
I'm doing alright, thanks for asking.
Same ol G
Member
Yeah i don't know you, straight to the ignore list.
Robb
Gold Member
Yeah, and Nintendo were smart not to provide a detailed specs sheet.
There'd 100% be a lot more negative impressions on the screen from those preview events if people went in knowing what to complain about and specifically look for.
It's still a very valid complaint though since other products in the same price-range are so much better. You pay the same amount for less.
Last edited:
Lucifers Beard
Member
That definitely doesn't look great from those results. That being said, I've not had any problems with the display where it has been noticeable enough for me to complain about it.
Having minimal standards doesn't mean being spoiled, though it's too much expecting any of it from the fanbase that buying packs of sliced cardboard
Emedan
Member
The screen is functioning. Expecting a $500 dollar games console to have the same quality screen as a $1200 dollar smartphone is being spoiled. There's price/performance trade offs in designing a console, seems like no one in here gets that.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Well one users notice the money coming out of their wallets when they pay and yes they do notice when they see the colours a bit more washed out than they should (especially if they try to turn HDR off and see how the display performs).
The numbers are quoted because it is not subjective but there is quantitative metrics that explain why the colours in games that do use HDR would appear more washed out than they should unless you turn HDR off. Some people have trouble admitting the display should be in no metrics worse than the OG Switch model especially despite the price increase.
Then again some people with the OG PSP did not initially think there was an issue with the LCD either.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
, you are light years away from the screen the iPhone has or the performance of the SoC (which on iPhone it is not actively cooled).I expect the screen of the new console not to be worse than the screen the OG model was and not to be one of the worst LCD screens in terms of motion blur they could find… but hey, it turns on
. The bar is low…
Last edited:
SweetTooth
Gold Member
There are mid/Low tier phones with better screens, those were $250-500 range
Madserb2023
Member
I find discussing perceptual things quite difficult. Its like playing a game of Where's Wally with someone and that person claiming he 100% is definitely not there while not knowing what he looks like. Its not to belittle anyone. I wouldn't know what I was looking at if someone showed me an MRI of someone's brain. Its like Gordon Ramsay tasting something and immediately knowing if it was frozen. You can't do thar unless you know the difference. What I will say however is that as with frozen food, even if you don't notice it, it shouldn't be frozen if you are paying good money. I just wish Nintendo offered two SKUs at launch with one having a better screen for those who noticed it. I can tell the difference between an image that is still and in motion
Emedan
Member
The screen isn't the only thing in a Switch 2.
The screen is better in every metric except response time.
I expect the screen of the new console not to be worse than the screen the OG model was and not to be one of the worst LCD screens in terms of motion blur they could find… but hey, it turns on