We Tested the Switch 2 Display - Is It Really That Slow?

[EdmondRC]

If Nintendo can release a firmware update for this, they should. They should automatically apply an overdrive mode when the Switch 2 is plugged in to an adequate charger. Then they should give you these options in settings. This way they don't have to update their battery life claims:

On-Battery Screen Responsiveness:
1 - normal mode (preserves battery life)
2 - overdrive mode (decreases battery life)

 

[Bamda]

Never thought to test it against other handhelds but instead against high monitors? What a joke. LOL

 

[HardReset]

Never thought to test it against other handhelds but instead against high monitors? What a joke. LOL

So if all handhelds have crappy display, they are still good because comparison agains monitors is invalid? LOL indeed.

 

[LimyG]

I counted two people up to this post who stated they had a Switch 2, they are both happy with it.

1. This is a tech site and it's good review. Technically it's pretty appalling, so people saying what rubbish the screen is are correct.

2. Subjectivity. Not fanboyism, simple subjectivity. What indiviuals actually see and feel (happy, fun etc.)

That is the only thing that matters for individuals. I guess Nintendo created this cheaped out display, then tested on several thousand random folks, to tell them simply what they thought.

If a certain threshold of users had expressed disappointment they would NOT have released it as it is now. The marketing team with input from sales would have assigned a threshold.

The feed back from users. Not technical analysis, but the regular user is posititive. That's all that matters.

Yes Nintendo pulled a fast one there, but most or many are not dissapointed with it. They percieve it as bright, colorful, and bigger than the original.

Nintendo got away with it. That's further backed up because people say this stuff isn't true, it's a beautiful display. To them it really is at least matching expectation. They are happy with there new Switch 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True story: I have no interest in handhelds so looked at it in action for 10 minutes wihout a critical eye, I formed a subjective opinion at Bic Camera in 10 minutes.

it looked pretty nice! I had read nothing about it previous to that, and my subjective opinion was that it looked colorful. Nice and bright, and a good size. As simple as that.

Clarifing my point.
=============

If buying a new gaming montitor I would have throughly researched, then critically evaluated, over hours, it's perforamance in shop, with the clerk permitting me free rain to change settings. I also bring UFO on a USB drive.

With that approach my judgement would likely fall in line with this review.

 

[HardReset]

I counted two people up to this post who stated they had a Switch 2, they are both happy with it.

1. This is a tech site and it's good review. Technically it's pretty appalling, so people saying what rubbish the screen is are correct.

2. Subjectivity. Not fanboyism, simple subjectivity. What indiviuals actually see and feel (happy, fun etc.)

That is the only thing that matters for individuals. I guess Nintendo created this cheaped out display, then tested on several thousand random folks, to tell them simply what they thought.

If a certain threshold of users had expressed disappointment they would NOT have released it as it is now. The marketing team with input from sales would have assigned a threshold.

The feed back from users. Not technical analysis, but the regular user is posititive. That's all that matters.

Yes Nintendo pulled a fast one there, but most or many are not dissapointed with it. They percieve it as bright, colorful, and bigger than the original.

Nintendo got away with it. That's further backed up because people say this stuff isn't true, it's a beautiful display. To them it really is at least matching expectation. They are happy with there new Switch 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True story: I have no interest in handhelds so looked at it in action for 10 minutes wihout a critical eye, I formed a subjective opinion at Bic Camera in 10 minutes.

it looked pretty nice! I had read nothing about it previous to that, and my subjective opinion was that it looked colorful. Nice and bright, and a good size. As simple as that.

Clarifing my point.
=============

If buying a new gaming montitor I would have throughly researched, then critically evaluated, over hours, it's perforamance in shop, with the clerk permitting me free rain to change settings. I also bring UFO on a USB drive.

With that approach my judgement would likely fall in line with this review.

Problem here is: without any screen to compare Switch 2 display, it may look good. However when direct comparison is available, then difference become clear to everyone. Like 30 FPS seems "OK" but when there is direct visual comparison against 60 FPS, no-one wants 30 FPS any more. On monitors, 60 Hz seems "OK" until one sees 120+ Hz display and then 60 Hz is trash.

In this case, everyone that "like" Switch 2 display either are fanboys or don't know about anything better. That's why tests like this are excellent. Switch 2 display is trash. It's not good enough or anything, it's just trash. Every single Switch 2 user would be happy if display is somewhat within modern standards. But because that won't happen, they just have to be happy with it.

Your guess that Nintendo tested display with thousands of people is somewhat funny. This kind of stuff is cheap because they are mass produced. Like Nintendo makes small and expensive displays with working unit and then switches it for better one because testers say it sucks... Won't happen. Too expensive. Manufacturers decide what they do, then put it on sale. If it won't sell because thing X sucks, then they May do another revision that has X fixed.

There are already guesses Nintendo will release OLED version of Switch 2. Feel free to figure you why.

 

[LimyG]

I just don't think they would have release this cheaped out display if in development, people didn't like it.
Also, if side by side with Switch 1, the same still holds. Even on BBC tech show they did a side by side and were very impressed with the improvements.

That show is for the general public. The assement was subjective, entirely, no testing was shown.

Asking thousands of people what they thought, Reglardless if comparing to Switch 1 or just showing the Switch two is cheap and easy. Set up a booth, with two junior staff in several big electronics shops and let anyone try it for 1 minute, perhaps five on the condition they answered a very simple Questionairre. No more than three questions. Perhaps 2:

1. Do you think it looks better than the switch one. Yes/No.
2. Are you satisfied and would consider a purchase. Yes/No.

That is enough to get a totally non-objective, fully subjective idea of where the public at large stand.

For this device, it's the subjectivity that will drive sales. Not tech articles.

Finally, you mind find that funny, but it's basic marketing. No company would release a new product without guaging public opinion first - pre release. That is common sense.

Finally, Objectively it's a big fail. I agree. Nintendo found it to pass the subjective, so knew it would sell. Users are happy with it - mostly.

Technically you are right Hardreset (except for impling they didn't even bother to test it on the public before full release. Any company that did that would fail.)

I was merely pointing out what Nintendo, who have been in the business concluded, pre-release by doing what every company does before a mass roll out of products. There market research could have been anything. Mine was just an example. Could have been conducted in differerent way. But I find it funny that you think a large company would release a new upgraded product without finding out what potential customers thought first.

I certainly am not defending the switch 2 display. Likely our opinions are close. It's really bad. I would never buy it. But enough folk are simply happy enough with it to be a commercial success, which it is. Which owners have favourable views of, despite it being crud. Nintendo from a business point of view, sales, have succeed. It's a simple hobby, fun kind item.

While an epic let down objectively, customers are not objective, and probably never visit forums like this. That's all I'm say - what people feel, percieve in this case it what makes it popular. Despite a proper objective review showing it's a very poor screen indeed.

 

[HardReset]

I just don't think they would have release this cheaped out display if in development, people didn't like it.
Also, if side by side with Switch 1, the same still holds. Even on BBC tech show they did a side by side and were very impressed with the improvements.

That show is for the general public. The assement was subjective, entirely, no testing was shown.

Asking thousands of people what they thought, Reglardless if comparing to Switch 1 or just showing the Switch two is cheap and easy. Set up a booth, with two junior staff in several big electronics shops and let anyone try it for 1 minute, perhaps five on the condition they answered a very simple Questionairre. No more than three questions. Perhaps 2:

1. Do you think it looks better than the switch one. Yes/No.
2. Are you satisfied and would consider a purchase. Yes/No.

That is enough to get a totally non-objective, fully subjective idea of where the public at large stand.

For this device, it's the subjectivity that will drive sales. Not tech articles.

Finally, you mind find that funny, but it's basic marketing. No company would release a new product without guaging public opinion first - pre release. That is common sense.

If Switch 1 display is trash, then Switch 2 display may look good. But against good displays, it sucks. Comparing against predecessor works poorly.

Your "common sense" is non-working. Today companies have control to simply decide what is available. They just decide what to make and customers must apply because there are no real alternatives. Examples are countless. Taking displays. Who really asked computer monitors to be 16:9? Nobody. Manufacturers just decided that they make 16:9 displays instead 16:10 and that's it. Apple decided that iPads are mostly 4:3. Nowadays most large manufacturer Android tablets are 16:10.

- Did any manufacturer ask if PC displays should be 16:9 or 16:10?
- Did Apple ask if tablets should be other than 4:3 (or close)?
- Did largest Android manufacturers ask if tablets should be anything else than 16:10?

For all those questions, answer is no. Manufacturers decide what to offer. Same with Switch. Display is what it is, take it or leave it.

Finally, Objectively it's a big fail. I agree. Nintendo found it to pass the subjective, so knew it would sell. Users are happy with it - mostly.

Technically you are right Hardreset (except for impling they didn't even bother to test it on the public before full release. Any company that did that would fail.)

I was merely pointing out what Nintendo, who have been in the business concluded, pre-release by doing what every company does before a mass roll out of products. There market research could have been anything. Mine was just an example. Could have been conducted in differerent way. But I find it funny that you think a large company would release a new upgraded product without finding out what potential customers thought first.

I certainly am not defending the switch 2 display. Likely our opinions are close. It's really bad. I would never buy it. But enough folk are simply happy enough with it to be a commercial success, which it is. Which owners have favourable views of, despite it being crud. Nintendo from a business point of view, sales, have succeed. It's a simple hobby, fun kind item.

While an epic let down objectively, customers are not objective, and probably never visit forums like this. That's all I'm say - what people feel, percieve in this case it what makes it popular. Despite a proper objective review showing it's a very poor screen indeed.

Like said on previous chapter, manufacturers rarely make any "public tests". Even if public says screen sucks, they may release updated model. Also assuming Nintendo really took some random people for testing, you really think all those randoms keep their mouth shut? At least one would instantly tell everyone on internet how they got tested hype product and it sucks. They cannot do any public testing because someone WILL leak. That's how things work and that is why some announcements become disasters. Your logic just doesn't make any sense.

Nintendo has huge fanbase and they will accept anything as long as it's Nintendo. Like see with A**** and some other companies.

Sales and actully being good product are always two different things. Good to remember that. Switch 2 display sucks but because Nintendo, it is "allowed" to be subpar.

 

[LimyG]

If Switch 1 display is trash, then Switch 2 display may look good. But against good displays, it sucks. Comparing against predecessor works poorly.

Your "common sense" is non-working. Today companies have control to simply decide what is available. They just decide what to make and customers must apply because there are no real alternatives. Examples are countless. Taking displays. Who really asked computer monitors to be 16:9? Nobody. Manufacturers just decided that they make 16:9 displays instead 16:10 and that's it. Apple decided that iPads are mostly 4:3. Nowadays most large manufacturer Android tablets are 16:10.

- Did any manufacturer ask if PC displays should be 16:9 or 16:10?
- Did Apple ask if tablets should be other than 4:3 (or close)?
- Did largest Android manufacturers ask if tablets should be anything else than 16:10?

For all those questions, answer is no. Manufacturers decide what to offer. Same with Switch. Display is what it is, take it or leave it.

Like said on previous chapter, manufacturers rarely make any "public tests". Even if public says screen sucks, they may release updated model. Also assuming Nintendo really took some random people for testing, you really think all those randoms keep their mouth shut? At least one would instantly tell everyone on internet how they got tested hype product and it sucks. They cannot do any public testing because someone WILL leak. That's how things work and that is why some announcements become disasters. Your logic just doesn't make any sense.

Nintendo has huge fanbase and they will accept anything as long as it's Nintendo. Like see with A**** and some other companies.

Sales and actully being good product are always two different things. Good to remember that. Switch 2 display sucks but because Nintendo, it is "allowed" to be subpar.

Okay fair enough. We clearly have very different opinions when it comes to the Subjectivity issue of the objectively poor Switch two display. Subjectivity drives sales which is all that Nintendo what.

I read your posts on other threads and like them. Often agree with you. On this, we have a difference opinion, and seeing as niether of us is likely to buy a Switch do, what do you say -

-Shall we leave it that, agree to disagree? No offence, no hard feelings.