Pemalite said:
Miyamotoo said:
We are talking about there is no any need for 1080p screen for dedicated gaming device if your games are 720p, thats clear fact that you keep ignore.
|
No. You are ignoring the fact there is benefits to upscaling.
Besides, what if Nintendo releases Netflix on the Switch? What if they have a Web-Browser, what if they have Youtube? There is a benefit to 1080P there as well.
Not to mention, if you have video-sequences for a game, they will likely be mastered at 1080P as that is the docked-modes top-end resolution, thus there is a benefit there for games as well.
What if a game is 2D? Or just not that intensive? That could run at 1080P on the Switch's anemic hardware, even whilst mobile.
Don't try and convince me that there is no point having a 1080P display, because you will never succeed, I don't believe in your apologetic point of view... All my displays are 1080P and higher. (Most are 1440P.) I have seen the light and glory that is higher resolutions.
Miyamotoo said:
No they didn't cheap, its very reasonable decisions, but you can also ignore that. And they don't cheap out with Tegra chip because its actualy best suits for device like Switch.
|
A 720P screen is cheap. Chinese Android handset manufacturers not only have bigger and better screens, but their handsets are cheaper than the Switch. - Go checkout the Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 for example, has a 1080P screen and can be picked up for about $170 AUD. - The Switch is $470 AUD. Ouch. And you are telling me Nintendo didn't cheap out? Common.
The Tegra chip used in the Switch is also not cutting edge, it's old Maxwell rather than the superior Pascal or the forward-thinking Volta.
It's also been severely castrated in terms of clock rates.
Pascal was in the design phase for years, nVidia knew about it, likely let Nintendo know about it during the design of the Switch. - But the older Maxwell chip would be cheaper.
Again. Nintendo cheaped out.
Miyamotoo said:
Yes, because that's why I wrote similar, 264 vs 236.87, that's only 10% difference, thats nothing.
Far more important is pixel density that just resolution, and fact is that Switch and iPad Pro have similar pixel density.
iPad Pro also doenst have AMOLED/OLED and is also using IPS, is that means Apple cheaped out also!? :D And why would Nintendo use something like AMOLED/OLED, when that would effect on higher price of device (even Apple is not using AMOLED/OLED), and when actualy people are saying that IPS Switch screen is great!?
Not only that you have arguments without sense, but you actually totally ignoring some clear facts. Basically all your arguments come "720p screen is low for 2017." while you totaly keep ignoring all clear facts. So having all that on mind, I dont have any more attention to spend any of my time on this arguing.
|
The iPad Pro is not using a cheap and terrible 720P panel. Overall resolution is just as important as pixel density and panel type.
Besides, the iPad Pro's pixel density is still higher than the Switch and goes through more testing and calibration to get the best possible results. (Contrast, Colour Accuracy etc'.)
But the iPad Pro is also still not the best Tablet on the market.
The Google Pixel C for example has a GLORIOUS 2560 x 1800 resolution over an amazing 10.2" canvas.
The Surface Pro 4 has a 12.3" 2736 x 1824 display with a Pixel density of 267. And it is clear and crisp.
My Samsung Galaxy Note has a 5.7" 2560x1440 panel and it is amazing at 518 Pixels Per Inch. (Granted it is using a Pentile subpixel layout.)
Also a Pixel Density of 264 vs 236 is a big difference.
The Google Pixel C's pixel density is 308. - Are you going to claim that is a small improvement too?
720P is garbage for 2017. It's not acceptable. I was gaming at higher resolutions than that 20 years ago.
|
