NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV

[liquidshadowfox]

After some testing with smooth frog, I do see 120 fps very clear but only if the FPS is REALLY consistent, otherwise it'll blur out a bit and not be as clear (I see this in a lot of games that I don't cap using riva with async mode). This monitor has really good motion clarity above 95 fps (below 95 fps with pulsar on there's some crosstalk which I assume is due to the bug they are fixing in the next firmware update). In order to take advantage though, I think it's best to cap the FPS where the frame times are consistent and you have a flat line shown by the riva overlay, otherwise you might get some inconsistencies where it'll momentarily blur our or look "fuzzier" than it should be, that's been my experience so far. Some games you don't have to cap anything and the frame times are consistent enough (variance is very slow, no huge dips) where pulsar works without any extra effort.

[kyube]

So, I understand this to mean that if the monitor is set to ≥240 hz, but the frame rate drops to 120 fps, the Pulsar will ̶s̶t̶i̶l̶l̶ work.

If you strike through the "still" part in your quote above, yes.
Pulsar is a variable refresh rate implementation. It functions within the same set of rules as any other normal variable refresh rate display.

So, you can't test the Pulsar at 120 hz in the UFO test in webbrowser.

You can only use SmoothFrog with a TestUFO photograph to emulate such an synthetic environment.
The alternative is checking out in-game.

Web browsers (& Windows altogether) are always FPS=Hz, therefore VRR doesn't work.

[purplemelon1]

So, I understand this to mean that if the monitor is set to ≥240 hz, but the frame rate drops to 120 fps, the Pulsar will ̶s̶t̶i̶l̶l̶ work.

If you strike through the "still" part in your quote above, yes.
Pulsar is a variable refresh rate implementation. It functions within the same set of rules as any other normal variable refresh rate display.

So, you can't test the Pulsar at 120 hz in the UFO test in webbrowser.

You can only use SmoothFrog with a TestUFO photograph to emulate such an synthetic environment.
The alternative is checking out in-game.

Web browsers (& Windows altogether) are always FPS=Hz, therefore VRR doesn't work.

Well hold on there. The vrr the monitor sees is seperate from game renders no? Otherwise how would youtube 60hz work.
https://testufo.com/vrr should work. Likewise the base ufotest will show him 360, 180 and 90hz for 3 ufos on.

Also to anyone who doesnt see a difference. Just to make it easier. Make sure you move your head with the screen while strobing is on. Neat trick just in case you arent moving your eyes. Swivel with the chair in the direction of screen movement.
If you do see immideate changes in clarity by swiveling your head. Either strobing is not for you or you will have to learn to move your eyes a lot more.

[passballtotucker]

Does anyone notice motion blur when using DLSS frame generation? It looks less blurry with it off even if the frame rate is much lower.

[radeko]

Work is reportedly underway to implement Pulsar technology in FALD mini LED-backlit monitors. They are expected to be commercially available within a year or two.

[Tell]

Work is reportedly underway to implement Pulsar technology in FALD mini LED-backlit monitors. They are expected to be commercially available within a year or two.

Dimming zones require extra processing delay which goes against the entire point of pulsar monitors.

[kyube]

Dimming zones require extra processing delay which goes against the entire point of pulsar monitors.

No, they don't “require extra processing delay” at all.
Look at TV's. There's no added processing latency in MiniLED based TV's.
Funnily enough, Pulsar already adds additional processing latency to the total display latency chain, according to Battle(Non)Sense data

[Tell]

Dimming zones require extra processing delay which goes against the entire point of pulsar monitors.

No, they don't “require extra processing delay” at all.
Look at TV's. There's no added processing latency in MiniLED based TV's.
Funnily enough, Pulsar already adds additional processing latency to the total display latency chain, according to Battle(Non)Sense data

https://youtu.be/JranOxeRXHc?t=901

So you're claiming his testing is flawed in a specific way that only causes monitors with dimming zones to exhibit a large increase in delay?

[kyube]

https://youtu.be/JranOxeRXHc?t=901

So you're claiming his testing is flawed in a specific way that only causes monitors with dimming zones to exhibit a large increase in delay?

I'm claiming that they don't “require extra processing delay”
Never said that MiniLED desktop display don't have flawed implementations.
TVs are an example where it's done right, showcasing that there's clearly a optimization problem present across desktop display implementations.
I haven't come across a single resource online claiming that it's some large technological hurdle.

[tsarri]

After some testing with smooth frog, I do see 120 fps very clear but only if the FPS is REALLY consistent, otherwise it'll blur out a bit and not be as clear (I see this in a lot of games that I don't cap using riva with async mode). This monitor has really good motion clarity above 95 fps (below 95 fps with pulsar on there's some crosstalk which I assume is due to the bug they are fixing in the next firmware update). In order to take advantage though, I think it's best to cap the FPS where the frame times are consistent and you have a flat line shown by the riva overlay, otherwise you might get some inconsistencies where it'll momentarily blur our or look "fuzzier" than it should be, that's been my experience so far. Some games you don't have to cap anything and the frame times are consistent enough (variance is very slow, no huge dips) where pulsar works without any extra effort.

Why would frametime have an effect on pulsar at all? I can see why gameplay might feel choppy if frametimes are inconsistent and you experience stutter, but why would that male pulsar look blurry?