I want to revisit this. Although it seems like the next step, and something I would want, I don't think 1080p is 100% confirmed just yet. We can say the same about a 90Hz screen.
I want to bring up an interesting scenario. Let's just say we can't have our cake and eat it, too, meaning we can't have 1080p + 90hz at launch. We can only have one or the other. So I want to ask you and everyone else:
Would you rather have an 800p screen with 90Hz, or a 1080p screen at 60Hz? What do you think is better for developers and gamers in the long run?
I'm playing devil's advocate here. But considering the power of the Steam deck and how close the Switch 2 will be to it in handheld mode, 800p isn't the end of the world. All the other PC handhelds have a 1080p or a 1440p screen most extreme end, but they are theoretically in the 3-4 flops range. Though ,no PC handheld actually needs a screen behind 1080p at the moment (Aya Neo).
I think in the beginning, we're going to see quite a few native 1080p ports in handheld mode (particularly 1st party) that are switch to PS4 quality, along with DLSS enabled 1080p on handheld, but in the long run, they're probably going to end up being 540p-720p in handled and 600-900p docked for 3rd party current-gen ports, just like demanding games on the current switch models. That being said, we do have DLSS, which
should help bring 540p images to 720p in handheld, and 600-900p images to 1080p in docked.
With an 800p screen, the image quality will at least look better natively on 800p than on a 1080p screen that's outputting a lower resolution. They also don't have to spend as much power on resolution, which could save battery life (also using lowest handheld profile) . Or they could choose to put the resources in framerate, or something else. The reason for selecting a 90Hz screen in this case is if they can't find a 60hz screen that can't adjust to 40Hz.. as well as for those rare instances for some games to go over 60fps for enthusiasts. And of course, supporting VRR, if there are 90Hz screens that support that.
note: When people were talking about VRR earlier this week, I thought they were talking about Virtual Reality.. Not Variable Refresh Rate. Massive brain fart. Surprised nobody called me on it.
At least super sampling (not necessarily DLSS) a native 4k image on a 1080p screen would be a nice consolation prize. Free Anti aliasing.
Would it really be a good idea for Nintendo announce the release date by the month so far in advance? If the Switch has a top selling game this holiday to maximize selling switch units, it could affect their holiday console sales, and that game as well-especially if it ends up being multiplatform. But I could be wrong. I think they did it with the handheld consoles... And they could also introduce a price cut this holiday season.. But I wouldn't be surprised if they wait for a price cut when switch 2 is out.
Hopefully Switch 2 will be a fierce competitor in the 15w and below category.
That's interesting that the ASUS Rally is the only PC handheld (that DF tested at least, and on this review ) that supports VRR.
Would be huge if Switch 2 gets it. But it is a 120Hz screen though..
Asus ROG Ally vs Lenovo Legion Go/OneXPlayer 2 Pro/AyaNeo Kun.
www.eurogamer.net
is true VRR only supported on 120Hz IPS screens? If true,
This Variable Refresh Rate stuff is making sense to me now, and I understand better why it would be better if we could ideally get VRR support on handheld and TVs at the same time for consistency. Considering that current gen consoles support VRR tvs and monitors, I don't see why Switch 2 should be omitted, though a 120Hz screen on handheld is less likely. I'd still take. , If we get a 90Hz screen on the handheld like SD OLED, that's the next next best thing at least. I'll take a stable 40fps support in 80Hz mode.