240 Hz ULMB 1 vs 360 Hz
240 Hz ULMB 1 vs 360 Hz
Which one is better in terms of performance?
Re: 240 Hz ULMB 1 vs 360 Hz
It doesn't affect performance.
Steam • GitHub • Stack Overflow
The views and opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Blur Busters.
The views and opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Blur Busters.
Re: 240 Hz ULMB 1 vs 360 Hz
I'm not an expert at all, so take my words with a grain of salt but:
ULMB often worked poorly so I assume you want to consider ULMB 2 and/or the new Pulsar tech (basically a renamed ULMB 2), in which case, for what I read, 240hz (on a decent panel) +ULMB 2/Pulsar should be vastly superior to a "plain" 360hz monitor (without BFI/ULMB/etc.). If ULMB 2/Pulsar works like BFI, then I believe that on 240hz panel you should get a 75% blur reduction and therefore perform roughly like a theoretical 750hz panel...but I could be completely wrong, If you want to get accurate numbers you better ask an expert member of the forum or the Chief
Re: 240 Hz ULMB 1 vs 360 Hz
That is correct. But it doesn't affect performance. These things have no impact on frame rates.O-T-T wrote: ↑17 Jan 2024, 14:21I'm not an expert at all, so take my words with a grain of salt but:
ULMB often worked poorly so I assume you want to consider ULMB 2 and/or the new Pulsar tech (basically a renamed ULMB 2), in which case, for what I read, 240hz (on a decent panel) +ULMB 2/Pulsar should be vastly superior to a "plain" 360hz monitor (without BFI/ULMB/etc.).
Steam • GitHub • Stack Overflow
The views and opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Blur Busters.
The views and opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Blur Busters.
Re: 240 Hz ULMB 1 vs 360 Hz
I know But I think what he was asking was quite understandable... on the other hand on this forum we talk almost exclusively about motion clarity and blur reduction, so I interpreted his word "performance" in this sense.RealNC wrote: ↑17 Jan 2024, 14:29That is correct. But it doesn't affect performance. These things have no impact on frame rates.O-T-T wrote: ↑17 Jan 2024, 14:21I'm not an expert at all, so take my words with a grain of salt but:
ULMB often worked poorly so I assume you want to consider ULMB 2 and/or the new Pulsar tech (basically a renamed ULMB 2), in which case, for what I read, 240hz (on a decent panel) +ULMB 2/Pulsar should be vastly superior to a "plain" 360hz monitor (without BFI/ULMB/etc.).
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 29 Jan 2024, 07:28
Re: 240 Hz ULMB 1 vs 360 Hz
As the others noted the topic question is ambiguous.
I own an ULMB1 monitor myself (PG279Q, IPS) (waiting for new ASUS PULSAR display this year so badly…). The backlight pulse (ON) time is 2ms at 120Hz and 100% pulse width setting. This equals a pixel persistence of 2ms. A 360Hz monitor has a frame time roughly of 2.8ms. And on a sample and hold display this equals 3ms of persistence. So in terms of motion blur the ULMB1 should be better if looking on the numbers only.
BUT:
I am playing mainly with ULMB enabled (Warthunder) because without, the motion blur is not acceptable for me. I am very sensitive to motion blur unfortunately.
But ULMB1 has some disadvantages which lower the overall “performance”:
*stuttering even when Vsync on and fps are fixed to 120Hz (most annoying for me because reason unknown).
*multiple strobe images in the top and bottom region of the monitor (this is acceptable in my game because in motion I look at the central part of monitor only).
*much darker because backlight is in average much lower intensity. (acceptable by reducing ambient light)
*colors are worse (acceptable when gaming)
If my RTX3080 would deliver >360Hz I would prefer 360Hz FPS over ULMB1 120FPS.
I own an ULMB1 monitor myself (PG279Q, IPS) (waiting for new ASUS PULSAR display this year so badly…). The backlight pulse (ON) time is 2ms at 120Hz and 100% pulse width setting. This equals a pixel persistence of 2ms. A 360Hz monitor has a frame time roughly of 2.8ms. And on a sample and hold display this equals 3ms of persistence. So in terms of motion blur the ULMB1 should be better if looking on the numbers only.
BUT:
I am playing mainly with ULMB enabled (Warthunder) because without, the motion blur is not acceptable for me. I am very sensitive to motion blur unfortunately.
But ULMB1 has some disadvantages which lower the overall “performance”:
*stuttering even when Vsync on and fps are fixed to 120Hz (most annoying for me because reason unknown).
*multiple strobe images in the top and bottom region of the monitor (this is acceptable in my game because in motion I look at the central part of monitor only).
*much darker because backlight is in average much lower intensity. (acceptable by reducing ambient light)
*colors are worse (acceptable when gaming)
If my RTX3080 would deliver >360Hz I would prefer 360Hz FPS over ULMB1 120FPS.
Re: 240 Hz ULMB 1 vs 360 Hz
I've got the AW2521H and also a sensitivity for blur from displays (as well as games's TAA) and I use 240hz ULMB at times for competitive games but frequently am fine on playing 360hz adaptive sync technology.
Works pretty good for my use cases.
Works pretty good for my use cases.
CPU: AMD R7 5800x3D ~ PBO2Tuner -30 ~ no C states
RAM: Gskill Bdie 2x16gb TridentZ Neo ~ CL16-16-16-36 1T ~ fine tuned latency
GPU: ASUS TUF 3080 10G OC Edition(v1/non-LHR) ~ disabled Pstates ~ max oced
OS: Fine tuned Windows 10 Pro, manual tuned.
Monitor: Alienware AW2521H ~ mix of ULMB/Gsync @ 240hz/360hz
More specs: https://kit.co/Kyouki/the-pc-that-stomps-you
RAM: Gskill Bdie 2x16gb TridentZ Neo ~ CL16-16-16-36 1T ~ fine tuned latency
GPU: ASUS TUF 3080 10G OC Edition(v1/non-LHR) ~ disabled Pstates ~ max oced
OS: Fine tuned Windows 10 Pro, manual tuned.
Monitor: Alienware AW2521H ~ mix of ULMB/Gsync @ 240hz/360hz
More specs: https://kit.co/Kyouki/the-pc-that-stomps-you