Very informative. I wonder why Nintendo went with such a poor-performing display. Maybe to get users onboard with the inevitable refresh model?
I think it keeps cost down which is important for any console release, and the 120Hz VRR display is a good marketing sound bite. Cheaper LCD display means the OLED will come out as an easy mid-gen upgrade.
Like the OLED switch, the OLED switch 2 will be more expensive than its LCD counterpart when it comes out.
Why even bother with the Switch 2, if we are measuring the fastest display?
The original impetus to do these comparisons was that there were reports of significant motion blur on the Switch 2, so comparing it was the whole point.
And indeed, it’s even worse than the original LCD Switch display.
I found it interesting that all LCD handheld PC displays tested except the ROG ALLY X had poor response times on the display, including the LCD steam deck.
None were as bad as the Switch 2 though. The 120Hz refresh rate doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense if frames can’t even transition at a rate that keeps up with it.
The 120Hz refresh rate doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense if frames can’t even transition at a rate that keeps up with it.
The main use is for VRR, with bigger ranges making it more usable (and input latency should improve, but few games are going to run at 120fps). However, it seems like the feature is mostly broken in retail games, with it only really working in that paid tie-in game.
I wasn’t aware that high refresh rates were beneficial for VRR? I’m not an expert, my assumption was that if games are needing VRR, they are likely running mostly around the 30-45 FPS, like cyberpunk. At which point a 60 Hz VRR display would be equivalent to a 120Hz one in so far as the VRR functionality is concerned.
