Japan's Chimolog is our second source. Its tests showed the Switch 2's display to be slightly quicker, averaging 17 ms at 60 Hz.
That's quite a huge difference though, about half that of Monitors Unboxed. Would definitely be worth finding out why the results are so different.
Read the Digital Foundry's review about the screen too. Pretty disappointing to be honest. At the very least, it shouldn't be worse than the first Switch.
That doesn't bode well for a high refresh rate screen
Edit - 120hz is only in docked mode and with a compatible 120hz screen, although the screen also supports 120hz at 1080p. I bet that will feel incredibly different than handheld mode per the article's quoted refresh rates of the actual screen.
120hz vs 30 is a massive difference in terms of perceived fluidity.
It's amazing how little noise this got until DF did their review.... Almost like it's a non-issue for most people.
Next up: Nintendo Switch 2 causes cancer in the State of California! Get the pitchforks and torches ready!
As someone who has recently been playing with the Switch 2 in handheld and docked mode, I have to say I'm surprised about the negativity.
The response time is only very slightly worse compared to playing docked. It's not noticeable at all, even when playing competitive online games.
Playing Switch 2 in handheld is a much better experience compared to playing Switch 1 in handheld. It's a huge improvement.
Pretty much the same as the switch 1 tho.
Maybe it's just the games I've been playing (mainly Mario Kart and TOTK), but I havent really had any issues with the Switch 2 screen, and I'm usually pretty sensitive to that stuff, at least on PC.
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.
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.
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).
... it's a handheld ...
I never played MK Wii because of the graphics. The game was just fun. IDGAF about graphics.
all 36 comments