Something that's always bothered me...is the eshop download speed always slow..is it throttled or something or do I have the switch setup wrong? I have gig internet and prob half that speed via wifi. But downloading games to the new OLED last night, I was getting 12mbps max.
It's slow on the regular Switch. It's always been slow. Not sure on OLED, but OG switch is 2.4Ghz wifi which is also where Bluetooth and a bunch of other electronics handle their wireless transmitions. That alone can cause a lot of issues especially if you have a lot of neighbors and 2.4 travelling so far. But I think the key factor is the sustained write speed of the storage (possibly the system architecture as well). A lot of that isn't well documented as they lean on maximum possible speed (typically burst speed) and then put a star next to it and bury somewhere what that star means for sustained speeds (if they even list them). You can try ethernet, but the switch itself is limited to 100Mbit internally and won't use the full gigabit the port allows. Some even claim everything is limited to 50Mbit max.
Switch 2 has much faster sustained write speeds and isn't limited to 2.4Ghz. The architecture is much better designed for handling a lot of data even though it too has much lower sustained write speeds than the listed speed.
I watched a Switch 2 screen review video, and the summary is that it looks relatively good for a handheld, but has a response time not seen in over a decade. It's so bad that it really cannot benefit from 120Hz, and barely 60hz, and ghosts like a MFer.
So if you like high speed games in handheld mode, it's going to look blurry regardless of system performance. It's twice as bad as the first Switch LCD screen in that regard.
Also, that the screens physical characteristics make HDR functionally useless. It doesn't have enough contrast to meet the minimum criteria for HDR content; this doesn't impact HDR out in docked mode.
Outcome doesn't impact me as I traditionally like turn-based stuff and play docked, but weirdly, it seems like Nintendo went for the "big numbers on paper" screen, but it fails in overall quality and performance.
If you're a handheld only person, I'd consider really waiting for the eventual OLED unless you're dying to play SMKW or your old stuff at a higher frame rate (yet blurrier).
It's slowly coming into focus why this was not allowed to be reviewed prior to launch, because of many glaring issues that are downgrades for the sophomore attempt. Even then, it's already outdated tech that will cause the same issues to arise once development of next gen titles are in full swing.
Reports of high latency are bumming me out, but that chart is a bunch of gaming monitors/TVs 24", 27", and 42" compared to the switch 2 as the only handheld?
At least compare to ANY other handheld device screens..?
Reports of high latency are bumming me out, but that chart is a bunch of gaming monitors/TVs 24", 27", and 42" compared to the switch 2 as the only handheld?
At least compare to ANY other handheld device screens..?
I watched a Switch 2 screen review video, and the summary is that it looks relatively good for a handheld, but has a response time not seen in over a decade. It's so bad that it really cannot benefit from 120Hz, and barely 60hz, and ghosts like a MFer.
So if you like high speed games in handheld mode, it's going to look blurry regardless of system performance. It's twice as bad as the first Switch LCD screen in that regard.
Also, that the screens physical characteristics make HDR functionally useless. It doesn't have enough contrast to meet the minimum criteria for HDR content; this doesn't impact HDR out in docked mode.
Outcome doesn't impact me as I traditionally like turn-based stuff and play docked, but weirdly, it seems like Nintendo went for the "big numbers on paper" screen, but it fails in overall quality and performance.
If you're a handheld only person, I'd consider really waiting for the eventual OLED unless you're dying to play SMKW or your old stuff at a higher frame rate (yet blurrier).
Onboard Switch 2 is actually being reported as 33ms which would put it higher. TBH I'm not sure about the other chart being passed around, unless I'm misunderstanding GTG tests.
I don't normally waste my time on youtube looking for videos, but I was curious about the practical aspect of this technical data. Which one thing I did see is everyone comparing 30fps games or 60fps games but no one testing 120. Also they are having to slow down the footage to see something that regular gamers typically won't notice.
RGT 85 has a pretty solid video covering the practical side and his testing and ultimately it's a big shrug. He tried to reproduce what was being touted but in reality, games play fine and look good. So what if this doesn't messure up to a high dollar gaming monitor plugged into a wall... or it doesn't measure up to a $100 more expensive handheld pc.
I think the ethernet is actually slower than Wifi on the Switch so I stopped using the ethernet port. Nintendo has never seemed to put a high priority on wired connections. The only Nintendo system I ever used ethernet for was the Wii U because it was very unreliable during downloads using Wifi.
I may not have spent enough time with my switch 2 yet it, but I’ve been happy with what I’ve seen so far. Only played a few hours total between MKW and Lunar Remastered and only played handheld. Time and more games will tell, but so far so good
Video I watched said it was twice 50% as worse, and they review displays as their reason to be.
I misremembered it being double, my bad.
So by this testing, it's worse than the Switch.
From some small channel, this guy did a response time test for many Chinese handhelds on the market. And this might be an apples to oranges comparison, but they find the averages around 40, making the Switch 2 better. But remember, the Switch 2 is also $200, or more, from these devices, which famously used leftover parts from other handheld device product lines, to make their specs. The Switch 2 is a tailor made premium device, I'd personally consider it the bare minimum to perform better than the lower end market by a significant margin.
I think calling the display HDR capable or whatever is the bigger BS, more so since OLED displays exist as does backlight dimming.
And it being touted as 120Hz, which does nothing for a screen with a slow response time. User control of screen settings, a la Steam Deck, such a 40Hz mode, would both save battery and help with screen blur.
I guess it's what you choose to prioritize. Nintendo went with size, resolution, and color, but forewent refresh rate capabilities and additional power draw. Would be better if players got a choice (OLED variant, screen settings), but that's Nintendo
Again, only an issue for handled folks with fast content. It doesn't bother me; I'd take a Switch TV variant (a la Vita TV) with no screen, no joycons, just a small box to plug in and play games, at a reduced cost. If only...
So what if this doesn't messure up to a high dollar gaming monitor plugged into a wall... or it doesn't measure up to a $100 more expensive handheld pc.
I think people are staring at better and better screens daily. Most phone displays on iPhones and high end Android are very fast. I use a 144Hz as my primary. TVs are now using VRR at higher frequencies.
It's noticeable, it's whether it matters to the individual. The expectation of the "lesser" experience from handheld gaming probably helps assuage that concern for most.
It really matter a lot for stuff like rhythm games, though. Game designed for specific screens, then played on other devices without any form of timing correction, sucks. I know it's a niche, but it does have some impact. Luckily most modern games have input correction baked in, but the impact of slow response times can make for additional frustrations in some cases.
I think most won't care as they don't know any better. Anyone who wanted a Switch, but more, has had many options on the market. The Switch 2 likely wasn't made to cater to tech nerds who care about screen response times or total system latency.
