So basically, the news here is that the switch 2 screen is better than the switch 1 at 17ms vs 21ms, except for one singular tester that claims 30+, which no other independent tester collaborates… And then they go and compare it to screens that cost multiple times the entire switch’s cost… And this is presented as a bad thing?
My understanding is that most testers found it’s about 4ms better than the switch 1, and the only tester that found it worse refuses to actually outline their methodology, and nobody can reproduce the 30ms+ number.
So basically, the news here is that the switch 2 screen is better than the switch 1 at 17ms vs 21ms, except for one singular tester that claims 30+, which no other independent tester collaborates… And then they go and compare it to screens that cost multiple times the entire switch’s cost… And this is presented as a bad thing?
Are you kidding me rn
My understanding is it’s worse than the switch 1 and basically every other modern handheld from the PSP onward.
My understanding is that most testers found it’s about 4ms better than the switch 1, and the only tester that found it worse refuses to actually outline their methodology, and nobody can reproduce the 30ms+ number.