Nintendo switch has a 6.2" 720p Capacitive Multi-touch display

[Vexing]

Honestly, it's a lot better than the resolution scale of the DS, so for mobile gaming it seems fine. 720p video looks fine on my 1440p phone most of the time, and I'd rather have more battery life anyway. As long as it goes to 1080p on the TV, I'm fine with this.

[ohitsluca]

Really makes me laugh that people think the resolution is too low or the screen is too small. The 3ds is 240p with tiny screens and it has sold amazingly well. This will let you play console Zelda on the go, people will buy it

[Sauron]

19 hours ago, DocSwag said:

720p? On a 6.2" display?

 

Honestly, that's kind of disappointing. Considering it's a handheld device, it really should have a higher res display.

So we can complain when it won't be able to run it? 720p on a 6.2" screen is still plenty for a good experience, it's better than a 1080p 23" monitor from desk viewing distances and I don't think we should expect a handheld to perform better than a ps4, which can only barely do 1080p.

18 hours ago, sof006 said:

6.2? Isn't that only slightly bigger than the Nexus 6?

 

I remember that phone being big but not big enough for gaming on.

You have to consider the controls won't be on screen (at least not the main motion and looking ones). It's still way bigger than a 3ds.

[Carclis]

35 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You have to consider the controls won't be on screen (at least not the main motion and looking ones). It's still way bigger than a 3ds.

It's so large in fact that I'm questioning whether or not it's truly a handheld. I mean it's definitely not going to fit in your pocket.

[AlTech]

10 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Resolution is fine. Higher DPI than what most people use in their PCs even (Most here use 25+ inch at lower than 4k so definitively you're criticizing a low DPI device by writing this on an even lower DPI device) 

 

What I care about though is for them to make it a useful tablet too: like someone mentioned I just don't want multiple devices my "tablet" should do tablet, games, ebooks, etc. Otherwise I won't bother.

Actually, I'm criticizing it when using a Hi DPI device (pro 4). And IMO using Low DPI monitors isn't a good thing.

 

Ideally a monitor should have 200-270 PPI..........

[sof006]

22 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

Was the PS Vita or PSP too small?

No but the games generally weren't AAA titles like Legend of Zelda or Skyrim. 

 

This console is supposed to be a powerful console to play those kinds of games but the screen is small.

[Munteanu]

I like how people are bashing the resolution in relation to the screen size.

Let's say you use a 1080p 22" monitor, that's pretty much the standard. That gives you 100 PPI.

720p 6.2" is 236 PPI, and using it in tablet mode the distance from the screen to your face is going to be about half the distance you would sit in front of a monitor.

What resolution a phone has has nothing to do with it, 720p is going to be fine.

[Scruffy90]

On 11/1/2016 at 10:34 AM, DocSwag said:

720p? On a 6.2" display?

 

Honestly, that's kind of disappointing. Considering it's a handheld device, it really should have a higher res display.

Why, so the battery could die faster? 1080p might have been ok. Any higher is pointless on a display so small. And no one seems to remember that those tegra chips run hot and are battery hogs.

[Scruffy90]

3 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Actually, I'm criticizing it when using a Hi DPI device (pro 4). And IMO using Low DPI monitors isn't a good thing.

 

Ideally a monitor should have 200-270 PPI..........

Why 200-270. Avg monitor has always had about 109ppi and no ones been complaining about it until recently. I use a surface pro 4 as well and there's honestly no reason the resolution needed to be so high (coming from a sp1 which was 1080p). 

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Scruffy90 said:

Why 200-270. Avg monitor has always had about 109ppi and no ones been complaining about it until recently. I use a surface pro 4 as well and there's honestly no reason the resolution needed to be so high (coming from a sp1 which was 1080p). 

I've been complaining about my 24" 1080p monitor for years, but I'm just too cheap to replace it with a 4k monitor. Also, I could never deal with <QHD on a laptop due to not having enough screen real-estate. So I've been complaining about both. (although I don't think a 720p screen on the switch is a problem).

[Sauron]

4 hours ago, Carclis said:

It's so large in fact that I'm questioning whether or not it's truly a handheld. I mean it's definitely not going to fit in your pocket.

It is going to fit actually, depending on your pockets but 6.2" with a slim border is perfectly feasible. The controller part comes off anyway

[Scruffy90]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

I've been complaining about my 24" 1080p monitor for years, but I'm just too cheap to replace it with a 4k monitor. 

That's a personal problem than. Even a 24" 4k display (I believe thats currently the smallest 4k monitor size avail) doesnt hit 200ppi. On a device so small, there is no reason for the resolution to be that high. I'm sick of companies sacrificing battery in the name of higher res displays on small devices. Let's just hope the rumor of the dock having some extra power is true.

[Mira Yurizaki]

11 minutes ago, Scruffy90 said:

Why 200-270. Avg monitor has always had about 109ppi and no ones been complaining about it until recently. I use a surface pro 4 as well and there's honestly no reason the resolution needed to be so high (coming from a sp1 which was 1080p). 

Except the typical viewing distances of a monitor is farther than that expected of the Switch. So the argument there falls flat.

[ZarosTenjin]

for those bashing the resolution and comparing it to phone. remember you can literally watch the battery cry in pain as soon as something 3d has to be rendered on phones. i am way more happy to have a hopefully lasting battery in this than having those extra pixels. especially since nintendo is known for its polish when it comes to looks of their game.

 

edit: spelling duh 

[Scruffy90]

19 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Except the typical viewing distances of a monitor is farther than that expected of the Switch. So the argument there falls flat.

It doesnt though. Assuming the switch is indeed 6.2" @720p that would mean ppi is  ~236. Higher than that of the avg monitor. I think 720 will be more than adequate for the tablet itself

[Scruffy90]

1 minute ago, ZarosTenjin said:

for thosebashing the resolution and comapring it to phone. remember you can literally watch the battery cry in pain as soon as something 3d has to be rendered on phones. i am way more happy to have a hopefully lasting battery in this than having those extra pixels. especially since nintendo is known for its polish when it coems to looks of their game. 

Good to know im not the only one. 

[79wjd]

Just now, Scruffy90 said:

It doesnt though. Assuming the switch is indeed 6.2" @720p that would mean ppi is  ~236. Higher than that of the avg monitor. I think 720 will be more than adequate for the tablet itself

Once you factor in viewing distances the delta is much less (Although the Switch should still have the advantage for most people).

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 minutes ago, Scruffy90 said:

It doesnt though. Assuming the switch is indeed 6.2" @720p that would mean ppi is  ~236. Higher than that of the avg monitor. I think 720 will be more than adequate for the tablet itself

If you're trying to argue that ~110PPI is adequate for a tablet, then again, the typical viewing distances of a tablet closer than that of a monitor. ~110 PPI at that range will look pixelated. You need to increase pixel density if you want the same detail clarity (or whatever that term is)

 

Granted nobody's really complaining about the 3DS all that much (actually wait, that was one of the chief complaints when those same people reviewed PS Vita).

[dragosudeki]

3 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Granted nobody's really complaining about the 3DS all that much (actually wait, that was one of the chief complaints when those same people reviewed PS Vita).

Keep in mind, the games used the top 3DS screen as a main screen, which had a resolution of 400x240. A single 720p screen (at nearly same pixel density AFAIK) would be a huge improvement over that.

[Scruffy90]

7 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

If you're trying to argue that ~110PPI is adequate for a tablet, then again, the typical viewing distances of a tablet closer than that of a monitor. ~110 PPI at that range will look pixelated. You need to increase pixel density if you want the same detail clarity (or whatever that term is)

 

Granted nobody's really complaining about the 3DS all that much (actually wait, that was one of the chief complaints when those same people reviewed PS Vita).

except i never said that tablets should or  need to be 110ppi (that arguement was made for monitors). Regarding tablets, i stated that for a device so small, theres no reason for the resolution to be so high. 720p is more than fine for the switch's size. I honestly hope they prioritize battery over everything else.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, Scruffy90 said:

except i never said that tablets should or  need to be 110ppi (that arguement was made for monitors). Regarding tablets, i stated that for a device so small, theres no reason for the resolution to be so high. 720p is more than fine for the switch's size. I honestly hope they prioritize battery over everything else.

 

44 minutes ago, Scruffy90 said:

Why 200-270. Avg monitor has always had about 109ppi and no ones been complaining about it until recently.

This implies you were questioning why a 6.7" screen should have a pixel density in this range.

[Scruffy90]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

 

This implies you were questioning why a 6.7" screen should have a pixel density in this range.

It doesnt imply that as I made my point rather clear. I specificied talking about monitors.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, Scruffy90 said:

It doesnt imply that as I made my point rather clear. I specificied talking about monitors.

Clearly your argument wasn't clear enough if more people than me came to the same conclusion. But eh, since you're adamant about this, have an internet cookie

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

I've been complaining about my 24" 1080p monitor for years, but I'm just too cheap to replace it with a 4k monitor.

You're not too cheap: a Titan XP is quite an expensive card.

 

And by the same token, the Tegra X or whatever that will probably be in this tablet would suffer a lot more to deliver 1080p for not that much of an improvement when all it's said it's done.

 

All I'm thinking is that I hope the unit upscales well since then I could pair it with a 1440p monitor at home for example.

[79wjd]

22 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

You're not too cheap: a Titan XP is quite an expensive card.

 

And by the same token, the Tegra X or whatever that will probably be in this tablet would suffer a lot more to deliver 1080p for not that much of an improvement when all it's said it's done.

 

All I'm thinking is that I hope the unit upscales well since then I could pair it with a 1440p monitor at home for example.

I'd have no problem gaming at 1080 but using the monitor at 4k for everything else.