HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Monitors Unboxed comparison of Switch 2 response times against IPS monitor, QD OLED monitor, Steam Deck LCD, Asus ROG Ally X, Steam Deck OLED and Playstation Portal.
Good news is that it's still a lot faster than the PSP
Switch 2 Display Tested. Afterimage is due to "incredibly slow" response time
- Thread starter Topher
- Start date
Bojji
Member
Monitors Unboxed comparison of Switch 2 response times against IPS monitor, QD OLED monitor, Steam Deck LCD, Asus ROG Ally X, Steam Deck OLED and Playstation Portal.
Good news is that it's still a lot faster than the PSP
2x better than PSP but 1/3 slower than Switch 1.
Only positive thing about this is that it should make 30fps games look smoother even if they lack camera motion blur, I guess...
cireza
Member
Monitors Unboxed comparison of Switch 2 response times against IPS monitor, QD OLED monitor, Steam Deck LCD, Asus ROG Ally X, Steam Deck OLED and Playstation Portal.
Good news is that it's still a lot faster than the PSP
That screen is an absolute embarrassment.
hemo memo
You can't die before your death
Kacho
Member
Monitors Unboxed comparison of Switch 2 response times against IPS monitor, QD OLED monitor, Steam Deck LCD, Asus ROG Ally X, Steam Deck OLED and Playstation Portal.
Good news is that it's still a lot faster than the PSP
Topher
Identifies as young
Monitors Unboxed comparison of Switch 2 response times against IPS monitor, QD OLED monitor, Steam Deck LCD, Asus ROG Ally X, Steam Deck OLED and Playstation Portal.
Good news is that it's still a lot faster than the PSP
HU bringing the goods as always. Really liked the part where he addresses "Why are opinions varied?" Everyone should watch that. Points out that some people seeing it and others not could be due to our individual biology. But.....it IS an issue that a lot of people have to put up with and that sucks.
Last edited:
Minsc
Gold Member
Again, how do you expect 120fps visuals to work correctly when that's 8ms a frame, on a display that takes 30ms for the pixels to adapt? Even 60fps is too fast for the response time of 30ms, since that's 16ms a frame.
"It looks fine" and it's able to actually correctly display the frames are not the same thing.
Last edited:
Hyet
Member
kevboard
Member
Monitors Unboxed comparison of Switch 2 response times against IPS monitor, QD OLED monitor, Steam Deck LCD, Asus ROG Ally X, Steam Deck OLED and Playstation Portal.
Good news is that it's still a lot faster than the PSP
dude... the PSP 1000
jesus christ. and the 2000 wasn't much better either. it wasn't until the 3000 that they actually improved the response time. but the first PSP with an actually good screen was the PSP Go
gothmog
Gold Member
My consensus is that I'm still enjoying my switch 2.
//DEVIL//
Member
Same. and i am not noticing it either due to the small screen. the only way I can see it is if I have to take screen shot with a phone. not even in slow mo I was able to notice it
but. hoping Nintendo can overdrive the screen for those people that can notice it.
Romulus
Member
I'm sure you do.
kevboard
Member
it's fine...
the high pixel density and small size makes the blur less noticeable than it would be say on a 27" monitor with similar response times.
is it a great screen? fuck no... I have a Deck OLED and that shits so hard all over it it's not even funny... actual HDR, instant response time, perfect contrast, 1000 nits...
...but is is good enough?... yeah
Topher
Identifies as young
It's a cheap screen, but it does the job. More than likely no one is going to be blown away by it, but you might be disappointed if you are sensitive to ghosting in certain games.
Crm114
Member
Honestly I've been happy with my purchase and didn't even notice since I was playing mostly on TV, but this really irks me. They're making great profit on the console from the start and then they pull this crap. The console is a hybrid lol the screen is very important.Nintendo's only response:
I'm seriously contemplating returning it until there's a fix.
How likely do you think it is that Nintendo will patch it?
You're not being objective with your language. And your interpretation of the data is entirely misleading and alarmist.
Last edited:
hinch7
Member
Monitors Unboxed comparison of Switch 2 response times against IPS monitor, QD OLED monitor, Steam Deck LCD, Asus ROG Ally X, Steam Deck OLED and Playstation Portal.
Good news is that it's still a lot faster than the PSP
I notice some blurring on the SD so that's not good. Also, no wonder the PSP was as blurry AF.. 62ms is insane. Love these tests lol.
Minsc
Gold Member
How is it misleading to say a 30ms response time is objectively terrible compared to other displays
How is it misleading to say the HDR on the device is horrible, which by nature edge-lit HDR is
"Entirely misleading" is just as alarmist as everything I've been accused of saying, because it's all true. What do you think the device would get rated for HDR on RTINGS? Like a 2, or maybe 3 or 4? How is that not crap?
You're just mixing up your personal feelings of the screen for objective comparisons. And taking it all a little too personal, nothing wrong with a little melodramatics. It's a piece of hardware, not a fucking person with feelings. Don't get so attached to it. It's ok to call it shit.
Liopleurodon
Member
Game Boy had a bad screen.
It sold well.
It sold well.
apple_of_enlightenment
Member
Does anyone please know the methodology used for testing this display?
Display latency testing is not straightforward especially considering this is a new display with proprietary, possibly locked down, drivers etc.
Edit. OK found it ()
This doesn't test the complete Switch 2 display pipeline. For that you'd need display drivers, DSC codes etc. On quick review the testing methodology also contains subjective aspects (as he admits).
It seems he's testing color transitions, not overall latency, which is only part of the story.
Display latency testing is not straightforward especially considering this is a new display with proprietary, possibly locked down, drivers etc.
Edit. OK found it ()
This doesn't test the complete Switch 2 display pipeline. For that you'd need display drivers, DSC codes etc. On quick review the testing methodology also contains subjective aspects (as he admits).
It seems he's testing color transitions, not overall latency, which is only part of the story.
Last edited:
The Devil's Grocers
Neo Member
Give me a break
I bought the system Thursday evening. Set it up yesterday after work, and are re-downloading a bunch of Switch games as we speak. Have checked out a few games. So far, everything looks great including the screen. It is only when I am in this thread that I am reminded that there is this quarrel going on. With graphs and youtube videos telling me how wrong I am regarding the screen.
Minsc
Gold Member
Testing pixel response times is pretty standard stuff. Most places that review screens do that. Not sure what the relevance in distinguishing the two is, as if the screen is reading at 30ms to transition from color 1 to color and Switch 1 (LCD) took 20ms for the same test, it seems worse to me.
This thread isn't about liking the screen or not though. It's great you like it. It's about how it compares on a technical level. It's been measured to have a slow response time, and the ghosting is evident in ALL videos of the screen.
For a system to have a 120hz screen, it is refreshing every 8ms. If the screen's response time is 30ms, yet at 120fps it's being asked to refresh every 8ms, it will fall short, there's no two ways around that. Now that you can't see that is great! It really is, but when there's plenty of screens that do have less than 8ms response times, and this one is 30ms, that is called objectively worse.
And again, for 120fps each frame is present for only 8ms, so having a response time longer than that, is bad. That is even longer than 60fps @ 16ms, is worse. Objective it is! 1ms is better than 30ms. No question. But it is nice to you it looks great.
Last edited:
apple_of_enlightenment
Member
It is pretty standard as testing part of the display pipeline. As he admits, he's not able to install software on the Switch 2 so couldn't fully test.
He also points out that there are subjective elements to the test. For example, in rough terms, the question of how bright a pixel has to be for it to be considered transitioned from one color to another.
TIGERCOOL
Member
downloaded that taiko no tatsuji demo that john was talking about on twitter and the "unreadably blurry" notes look the same on my tv and switch 2 display. My tv has a 6.8ms response time per rtings. There's a bit of motion blur on both but nothing outrageous at all (gaming mode is on)
even more convinced there are a lot of bad panels out there, probably particularly in the states.
even more convinced there are a lot of bad panels out there, probably particularly in the states.
Minsc
Gold Member
There was a video posted a page back here from kevboard - you can see that in most frames of their OLED there is 0 blur to the moving text.
Perhaps, maybe 30ms is off by a little? Even still, at 120hz you want under 8ms, as that is what each frame is on the screen for, and I don't believe it's close to 8ms or under. The fact that all screen captures of moving object show at least 1 if not 2 or 3 ghosted frames definitely means it's far from perfect.
TIGERCOOL
Member
well... yeah? That's an oled. Why would we be comparing lcd to oled? We know oled has near instant response time.
Minsc
Gold Member
Well no one was able to capture an image of the game without blur - so as a base we needed to confirm that the game didn't internally blur the motion. That was the main reason.
But the last Switch device I bought is also an OLED, so I naturally compare to that. And you get a lot of people saying "Oh but this is 120hz and VRR so it would be impossible to have an OLED" and now it's turned out that the 120hz is a lie by the fact you can't get it without ghosting, and the VRR isn't even being used properly in many games.
TIGERCOOL
Member
some motion blur is pretty much innevitable on LCD. There is no perfect display. OLED also has burn in risk and jutter at lower refresh rates. It's also a lot more expensive.
those who didn't get fucked over by the panel lottery (or simply a bad Korean batch sent to the US) are getting exactly what they expected.
120hz will probably look good on standard panels, we simply don't have many games to test. VRR has been a shitshow on all consoles, and compatability can be improved with firmware updates.
it's still uncertain if nintendo can add overdrive to improve response time further.
kevboard
Member
by all consoles you mean the PS5 I assume... as VRR support on Xbox is nearly perfect since the One S. the only issues with VRR on Xbox systems happen when a developer somehow breaks it due to some weird vsync issues of their game.
the One S and One X had the 1 issue of being HDMI 2.0, meaning they couldn't support 4k120hz, and only did 1440p 120hz, but that's only vaguely related to the VRR implementation that came into play if you wanted 120hz for the full 24fps lower bound.
so there's basically no way to improve the VRR on Xbox really... it's essentially perfect. it even supports all back compat games from og Xbox, 360 and Xbox One of course. and it works both on Freesync and on HDMI VRR compatible screens... it's perfect
Last edited:
TIGERCOOL
Member
that's good! don't own a series console but thought I'd heard about it having issues - maybe those were just game specific complaints.
doesn't sw2 have gsync compat? how has that worked for people?
kevboard
Member
the Switch 2 currently has zero VRR support docked sadly.
probably a technical hurdle due to the DP-Alt mode to USB-C to HDMI conversion it has to do.
most adapters out there that do similar stuff often have either no VRR support or spotty support.
it's probably also the reason the output is limited to the HDMI 2.0 bandwidth currently
Minsc
Gold Member
It does seem possible to add via updates, enabling overdrive would definitely reduce response times at an extremely small amount of battery life - it's suggested less than 15 minutes worst case for battery cost. But since most people don't even notice it in the first place... Still an option in the system settings would be nice.
They could also add in a color profile selection to fix the oversaturated colors some have issue with. Switch 1 you were able to toggle such an option depending on how saturated you liked the colors.
Itchy Tickles
Member
I mean tbf this topic isn't about the Switch 2 not selling well, it is about the screen quality, so this doesn't change anything.
People should have standards about the quality of item they get for their money. Being critical about a seemingly genuine issue isn't an attack. The biggest fanboy should be concerned about it.
Last edited:
Liopleurodon
Member
Dev1lXYZ
Member
I tried to warn people they needed to wait on this sucker. There is no defense for paying for crap quality, especially from Nintendo. The joycons still develop drift, the sub temu quality screen, and under-clocking the processor to prevent a fireball in your hands, and the short battery life…..and we aren't even a month out from launch! 
Yes sir, that's $450 well spent! They have to be making bank on profit margin because they sure as hell didn't spend much on R&D, quality, or game development!
Yes sir, that's $450 well spent! They have to be making bank on profit margin because they sure as hell didn't spend much on R&D, quality, or game development!
Last edited: