> “ While testing was conducted at 60 FPS, the response times even fall short of this low bar, with 16.67 ms being the slowest response time required for the pixels to refresh between frames”
Well it’s actually 16.66 ms (1000 / 60). You can’t round up. A render loop that takes just a fraction more than the absolute minimum above would neck down to 30fps.
philosophty · 51m ago
It seems like a headless Nintendo Switch 2 that was -$100 might sell a lot of units.
freeone3000 · 15m ago
You might be looking for an Nvidia Jetson Orin Nano, which is the dev board version of the switch 2 base chip. Nvidia sells them for $249.
tibbydudeza · 3h ago
Nintendo owners do not care about tech specs - to them the games is what matters.
frollogaston · 3h ago
Specifically, are the games written in Rust? (jk)
v5v3 · 4h ago
I would guess majority of Switch audience is very young and won't care.
If the response time is really 33ms, maybe they'd be able to tell playing Super Smash Bros. I remember as a kid wondering why Melee felt so weird on one TV.
lincon127 · 1h ago
Checks out
UltraSane · 1h ago
An LCD with a claimed refresh rate of n hertz really is implied to have a max GtG latency of 1000ms / n. Anything higher seems dishonest and rather stupid.
zapzupnz · 4h ago
The comments on that article are wild. They're of people who seemingly play tech specs rather than actual games.
All that mixed in with plenty of people spouting some of the talking points about the screen protector, how the screen in supposedly fragile, etc. that also applied to the Switch OLED. All in all, a lot of unjustifiable, manufactured rage from people who neither own the console nor ever intended to get one.
For $500, were people expecting to put an LG G5 in their backpacks?
Also, I know that we don't editorialise titles on HN, but I wish we could for this: "30 FPS response times" comes directly from the article, but they mean "30 ms", not "30 FPS".
NoPicklez · 1h ago
I don't think people are expecting to put an LG G5 in their backpacks, but shouldn't the average display response time be at least better than its predecessor released 8 years ago?
frollogaston · 4h ago
The "30FPS" part is about how 1/0.030s = 33.33. The article also says "While testing was conducted at 60 FPS, the response times even fall short of this low bar, with 16.67 ms being the slowest response time required for the pixels to refresh between frames such as to avoid blur or smearing." Tbh I don't understand this, I thought refresh rate and response time were totally independent, but 1/0.01667 = 60.
And yeah people complaining about Nintendo hardware is an old thing. Wii can't play BluRay, GameCube can't play DVD, N64 not enough RAM, and before that games/consoles were compared by data bus size. Doesn't really matter usually, except some N64 games were annoyingly laggy like 007 GoldenEye.
khedoros1 · 4h ago
I think the point is that if you've got a 120Hz refresh rate but a 30ms response time, the slow response time negates a lot of the benefit of the high refresh rate. You end up with a sliding window of 4 frames of video smeared together.
frollogaston · 3h ago
Ah I misunderstood what response time even is. I thought the whole screen is updating 120 times per second but it's delayed by 30ms, so it looks the same but you perceive input lag. That's not how it works.
UltraSane · 1h ago
The Switch 2 LCD is too slow to actually display 120 frames a second. And it is noticeably smeary. It really isn't acceptable in 2025
Well it’s actually 16.66 ms (1000 / 60). You can’t round up. A render loop that takes just a fraction more than the absolute minimum above would neck down to 30fps.
Although Nintendo is still clearly targeting families relative to XBox/Sony, the Switch itself has a lot of adult games (e.g. the Cyberpunk port).
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2021/211105e.pdf
All that mixed in with plenty of people spouting some of the talking points about the screen protector, how the screen in supposedly fragile, etc. that also applied to the Switch OLED. All in all, a lot of unjustifiable, manufactured rage from people who neither own the console nor ever intended to get one.
For $500, were people expecting to put an LG G5 in their backpacks?
Also, I know that we don't editorialise titles on HN, but I wish we could for this: "30 FPS response times" comes directly from the article, but they mean "30 ms", not "30 FPS".
And yeah people complaining about Nintendo hardware is an old thing. Wii can't play BluRay, GameCube can't play DVD, N64 not enough RAM, and before that games/consoles were compared by data bus size. Doesn't really matter usually, except some N64 games were annoyingly laggy like 007 GoldenEye.