Nintendo Switch Technical discussion [SOC = Tegra X1]

If you don't know who she is, and whether her opinion is credible and without bias, it's probably not worth posting. But the Switch does have a very good screen. Resolution isn't everything.

 

Hopefully Nintendo don't go down the Vita route and slacken on screen quality over time. I'd still like it to have a good screen by the time we get one.

 

I mean, I've been subbed to her for a good while, and she's pretty accomplished in the youtube phone review game. I'm not really into phones anymore.

It's just if she does a tech deep dive I cant exactly judge that. Looks fine though and I'm sure the 1k comments would call out BS.

 

Has someone measured the screen quality?

By screen quality I mean things like: Color accuracy, gamut, brightness, contrast (darkest:brightest ratio), surface coating quality (bright sunlight), ghosting, latency, viewing angles, etc. I would not trust any internet rumors without seeing the actual measured data to back it up.

I remember people praising the original PSP screen, but technically it was pretty bad. Severe ghosting, dithering artifacts, etc. It was much more immersive than phone screens simply because it was bigger and because the PSP games looked so much better than phone games of that era.

 

Yes, the video on previous page contains some data - https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1979543/
Gamut is slightly off SRGB, which should lead to slightly shifted colors on SRGB calibrated content. Static contrast is 1000:1, which is pretty good for LED, but far away from QLED and OLED displays.
I've not seen any ghosting on my Switch so far, color shifting is minimal on angles, thanks to IPS, latency is pretty good as well, so I would say that the display is pretty decent

 

Thanks! I missed that one. Seems pretty good. Obviously not as good as Apple's iPad Pro screens, but nobody expects a professional quality display in a 299$ gaming device.

 

From LesNumériques:
max lum = 400 cd/m² (fine)
contrast ratio = 1130:1 (rather good)
Reflectance up to 25 % (bad)
Delta E 2.8 (good)
Colour temperature 8 000 K instead of 6 500 K (rather bad)
4 stars (on 5)

 

Switch's IPS screen is sourced from Japan Display. That alone makes it hard to go wrong, especially compared to displays of 3DS days. I still remember fondly of my DS Lite, which used a display sourced from Sharp. The Switch is a triumphant return in that direction, but too little too late as Im already spoiled by OLED Vita and phones.

 

It definitely catches people's eyes. I've been bringing mine to the local comic shop and people gather around for Mario Kart. It's great. I didn't think that kind of thing really happened, but it does! The screen is great, and people don't mind the mini-controllers as much as I thought they would. Of course they prefer the full one, but the joy cons alone actually work fine for Mario Kart. I will say that going beyond 2 people on the switch screen gets a bit... Harder. At that point I asked the owner if we could use his TV, and we played some four player.

Good times.

 

Well the logical conclusion is that she has no clue about what she is talking about, or uses scale of 1-10 just between Nintendo machines and ignores everything else.

If switch screen would really be 9-9.5, this would mean that there is literally almost no room for improvement.

Aka oled/amoled with bettet resolution could only be 0.5 - 1 point better, and that can't be the case.

Maybe she is just biased as many fans of certain brand are, I have noticed that many nintendo-fans are really defencive, and most people(in general) have no experience about electronics in level that would give them enough understanding to make un-biased conclusions.

Someone here said that "it is 299$ machine, can't hope for better", well I disagree.

Vita had superior display and it is still very good years after, and it were cheaper than switch, at least here at Finland. (Switch could have similar display like oneplus 3 without costing more)

Nintendo just likes to maximise their profits mote agressively than others, like adding only 32Gb of mem while doubling it would not cost much.

Switch costs 349-389€ here, and it is ridiculous with these specs, and consumers see it like that. While in US it seems to be difficult to find any, here there haven't been any troubles to find one, or 20.

Even late on launch day I saw many in most/all local stores, and same deal every day = shelf full of switch.

Ps4 sold out for few weeks here too, so it is interesting to see how it sells worldwide after/if initial demand dies. For these specs 199-249€ would be the price point for many in my country to consider to buy one.

I guess many Finns are more demanding about their gaming stuff, and we don't like to pay extra for the name, if specs are lacking.

 

You carry the dock and cables around with you?

 

Nah, one of the other Switch owners had his in the trunk though. So he just went and got it. lol

 

And yet, even Sony stopped using the OLED panel from the original launch model (PCH-1000) and replaced it with an LCD panel (PCH-2000) 1.5-2 years later (depending on your region) because the LCD panel was significantly cheaper and less power hungry which helped the revised PS Vita increase battery life from 3-5 hours to 4-6 hours.

There's always going to be some compromises for a powerful portable gaming device. The OLED panel was certainly nice, but even Sony decided it wasn't the right choice for a portable gaming device.

Regards,
SB

 

True, but Sony have a modus operandi of weirdness and stupidity with their portables.

They had success with the PSP when slimming it down, improving its screen, and adding more memory. So, for the PSPGo, they shrank the entire device, including its screen (which saw no other adjustment, so certainly no improvement,) and removed its UMD drive, embittering existing customers and eliminating incentive for retailers.

The Vita was supposed to be capable of video out, but this idea was abandoned and entirely removed for the slim. They then released the PSTV which played some Vita games, and was capable of worse quality Remote Play. So, just as the PSVita was being repositioned as a PS4 accessory, Sony abandoned a feature (Remote Play + video out) that would be perfect for such an accessory, and instead released a new device that was only partially capable of either of its own features: Remote Play and playing Vita games.

I'm sure there's other stuff too, but that's what springs to mind. So "even Sony" isn't really a suitable precursor to any line of thought other than the possibility of stupidity in the portable arena.

 

The PSP-2000 was an improvement over the 1000 in every aspect. The 3000 had a weird screen that was inferior to the 2000. The PSP Go screen was really good, much better than the 3000 screen.

Also, why would any PSP user be bitter because Sony released the PSP Go?

/tuna, the resident B3D console historian

 

No Vita version ever had official TV out. AFAIK, the PSVitaTV/PSTV was capable of 720p remote play.

 

Yes, the 2000 was an improvement over the first model in every aspect, but that trajectory wasn't followed. I'd forgotten about the 3000, but you proved my point that Sony took a step back with that model.

Plenty of PSP owners were bitter about the PSPGo because their library of physical games - and remember, the UMD was one of the PSP's touted features - were incompatible. It didn't bother me, because I bought my games digitally the moment the PSP got the PS Store, and I've always been happy with my PSPGo, but there was plenty of Internet nerd rage at the time of its release.

No, but it was planned in the original model, hence one of the ports at the top. And yes, the PSTV was capable of 720p Remote Play, but the increased resolution also increased lag and rendered many games unplayable for many a person.

Sony just keep doing weird shit with their portables, even when there's no need and it may harm them.

The PSPGo should have had a bigger or equally sized screen, a better battery life than the other models, and launched with two SKU's: one with a disc drive and some internal storage; another with no disc drive, and more internal storage. It would have eliminated confusion as to what the device is and eased existing customers into going digital. What they released was a console that looked wildly different to the previous three iterations and was incompatible with its trademark physical medium. Unsurprisingly, sales were poor.

The PSVita should've had TV out from the get go, compatibility with the DualShock 4 ASAP, and any non-touch games should have run on the PS4, enhanced if the developer chose. It could have been the Switch years ago. Instead, we got a fantastic portable that Sony gave up on quicker than a fatty gives up on a diet, all so they could try to sell another little box that didn't function properly and bombed accordingly. The second iteration was great, but had a slightly worse screen and removed the potential for video out.

So yeah, perhaps weird and stupid isn't the right term. Cynically motivated, ill conceived, and doomed to fail would be more apt.

 

If you already had a PSP, why would it matter that the Go didn't play disc games? It's not like Sony forced you to replace your PSP with a PSPGo.

If it sold alongside PSP instead of replacing it, then it wouldn't matter. Sony gave consumers a choice and they voted with their wallets. If Nintendo release a non-docking Switch variant, as long as they don't replace the docking version then it'll just be another consumer option.

 

Not forcing people to buy a product is a poor justification for releasing a poor product. Was anyone at Sony congratulating themselves over the PSPGo? "Hey guys, the PSPGo sold like shit, but at least all of the purchases were voluntary!"

False equivalence. They would need to release a version of the Switch without a slot for game cartridges. Let them release it, watch it sell all of 12 units.

Even with this second point, you're using the customer choice excuse. That's not really good enough, given that the companies selling these devices presumably would like to sell some.

The choice needs to be between the traditional version and something that's at least arguably better, the choice between the PSP2000/3000 and PSPGo was a choice between the traditional version and something almost objectively worse.

 

I don't disagree. That has nothing to do with offending existing PSP owners though.

I wasn't making a direct equivalency, but trying to keep on topic of Switch by looking at the option realistically faced by Nintendo based on conversations here. If you just want to (somewhat incoherently) rant about Sony's mobile choices, start another thread.