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.
It’s so LFC works properly. If there isn’t a large range to work with, you can end up with gaps where VRR doesn’t work, causing stuttering or tearing. LFC is needed in general because you want VRR to still work when FPS drops below the minimum frame rate. And while it’s more of an issue with OLED displays there can be negative side effects such as flickering if the display minimum refresh rate is set too low.
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 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.
It’s so LFC works properly. If there isn’t a large range to work with, you can end up with gaps where VRR doesn’t work, causing stuttering or tearing. LFC is needed in general because you want VRR to still work when FPS drops below the minimum frame rate. And while it’s more of an issue with OLED displays there can be negative side effects such as flickering if the display minimum refresh rate is set too low.
Thanks for your response! Makes sense, I had not heard of Low Framerate Compensation.