NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV

[kyube]

One could say that if a monitor technology requires 1000 fps / 1000 Hz for proper motion clarity, it has failed as monitor technology for the purpose of motion clarity. The race to insane refresh rates is neither sustainable nor efficient.

You seem to be under some misunderstanding.
Your eyes require 8000 FPS / Hz. That's not a technological constraint, nor a “failure”
Backlight strobing (be it single-strobe such as ULMB2 or multi-strobe such as Pulsar) is a band-aid for low frame rate content.
It's about emulating analog reality in digital systems. It's unrelated to technology.
The road is sustainable, it's just littered with garbage content (low frame rate videos) & 3D user application software (games) which shouldn't have ever existed in the first place

However:
In real in-game scenarios, I honestly can’t perceive a meaningful difference between

• 500 Hz OLED (ASUS)

• 480 Hz OLED (ASUS dual mode)

• 540 Hz TN (Zowie)

• 360 Hz Pulsar (Acer)

So far, the only scenario where I can clearly see a difference is in the UFO tests on Blur Busters, where Pulsar performs noticeably the best.
I haven’t yet tested lower-FPS scenarios, where Pulsar is also supposed to shine, so that part is still pending.

Pulsar (VRR+Strobing) isn't anywhere near the eye-tracked motion sharpness of a XL2586X with DyAc2 enabled. Completely dfiferent MPRT targets.
I also fail to understand why users use TestUFO (browser test) for testing a variable refresh rate feature?.....

480fps on a 480hz OLED has slightly better motion clarity than 360fps on the 360hz Pulsar.

Pulsar doesn't work in a 360FPS @ 360Hz scenario.
If you've setup VRR properly (GSYNC+VSYNC+Reflex), you're going to be 324FPS@360Hz
No. A +480Hz OLED isn't anywhere near the sharpness of a backlight strobed display, regardless of fixed or variable refresh rate.

The OLED shines in games like Valorant and CSGO where I can get 540fps consistently @1440p (with the right settings in CS). In every other game I play where I can stay between 90-360fps (Pulsar min is 75 but you need to stay 15+ above to avoid double strobe), the Pulsar wins. I also have a 27" 4k 240hz OLED, and I'd rather play single player games on the 1400p Pulsar IPS as it's that good.

Your use-case makes Pulsar (VRR+Strobing) redundant. Current Pulsar models are primarily a <300FPS game feature.
ULMB2 is what you want to use to gain an advantage, where you're constantly frame_rate>refresh_rate.

Once a 600–750Hz Pulsar/VRR model arrives, one can consider the feature more appealing for esports titles as a way to eliminate sample & hold eye-tracked motion blur for the finite (relatively low) frame rate content we have on the market.

[Baron of Sun]

8000 Hz is a random number you mention. How many fps you need to get "analog reality emulation" depends on the content and how fast the motion is. For Super Mario Bros. you definitely don't need 8000 Hz to achieve zero motion blur for every relevant animation your eyes track. For some other content you are right, maybe F1 or tennis. I can imagine fast camera movements in video games would benefit from refresh rates far beyond 1000 Hz as well.

[kyube]

8000 Hz is a random number you mention.

https://blurbusters.com/the-stroboscopi ... -displays/

How many fps you need to get "analog reality emulation" depends on the content and how fast the motion is. For Super Mario Bros. you definitely don't need 8000 Hz to achieve zero motion blur for every relevant animation your eyes track. For some other content you are right, maybe F1 or tennis. I can imagine fast camera movements in video games would benefit from refresh rates far beyond 1000 Hz as well.

You're primarily tackling eye-tracked motion performance, which isn't the sole metric of what constitutes dynamic image quality
Eliminating the stroboscopic effect is necessary in order to try emulating analog reality.

[Baron of Sun]

Why is eliminating the stroboscopic effect necessary? Wouldn't it be enough that it strobes so fast that you don't see it flickering? (besides the brightness loss of course)

[kyube]

Why is eliminating the stroboscopic effect necessary? Wouldn't it be enough that it strobes so fast that you don't see it flickering? (besides the brightness loss of course)

This isn't about light flicker / backlight strobing what I'm talking about.
It's about how moving/dynamic objects are perceived by humans on a electronic visual display (umbrella term for LCDs, OLEDs,...)
Analog reality requires a high sampling/refresh rate. That's all there is to it.

phpBB [video]

[RealNC]

No idea what this is about, but we're talking about things that can lower motion blur on displays. You can do that at 60Hz even, no need for 20kHz.

[Baron of Sun]

Why is eliminating the stroboscopic effect necessary? Wouldn't it be enough that it strobes so fast that you don't see it flickering? (besides the brightness loss of course)

This isn't about light flicker / backlight strobing what I'm talking about.
It's about how moving/dynamic objects are perceived by humans on a electronic visual display (umbrella term for LCDs, OLEDs,...)
Analog reality requires a high sampling/refresh rate. That's all there is to it.

phpBB [video]

Wow, that was an awesome video, thanks for that and for the clarification!

[Dankerino]

Hello guys so what is the current verdict on the pulsar? Been going down the rabbit hole and still deciding on a new monitor. My main priority is just motion clarity and latency and getting advantage in an fps like CS2. I currently have a 5070 ti and 7800x3d and play on 1280x960 so I can maintain pretty good frames.

Ive been hearing a lot about how pulsar beating even a 600 hz zowie. Is this actually accurate? Been seeing a lot of arguments about the ufotests about that on reddit and how you can't compare different resolutions for the ufo test that accurately.

Im deciding on either pulsar, high hz TN like zowie, or possibly a 480 oled as well. What do you guys think would be best for my focus?

I currently have a 240 hz oled.

[MPRT|GTFO]

Hello guys so what is the current verdict on the pulsar? Been going down the rabbit hole and still deciding on a new monitor. My main priority is just motion clarity and latency and getting advantage in an fps like CS2. I currently have a 5070 ti and 7800x3d and play on 1280x960 so I can maintain pretty good frames.

Ive been hearing a lot about how pulsar beating even a 600 hz zowie. Is this actually accurate? Been seeing a lot of arguments about the ufotests about that on reddit and how you can't compare different resolutions for the ufo test that accurately.

Im deciding on either pulsar, high hz TN like zowie, or possibly a 480 oled as well. What do you guys think would be best for my focus?

Hi. I wonder why so many people seem to omit CRTs from consideration without a clear reason why. Even when, like in your case, you've basically already made sacrifices in things such as resolution, and I guess it's not even a proper fit for your monitor's aspect ratio, like I see other people do. The other downsides of CRTs, such as low brightness, etc. are nothing you can't usualy fix by spending a bit of time tweaking your room environment and things like that. And then you're playing a game and a genre that originated with CRT monitors in mind. And if you're already on a CRT, then the best thing to meet your priorities would be your CRT, or a better CRT, such as one that can do a higher refresh rate at the lowest resolution that you'd like to go to (there's generally a tradeoff between these settings).

Other than CRTs, I estimate (but I have no experience with) that some of the TN monitors of 480Hz+ should have a lower average latency of a given pixel change first becoming visible (relevant for e.g. small objects first appearing), however CRTs still achieve a lower latency from a frame being ready to the first pixel anywhere on the screen becoming visible (relevant for large sized changes, or for synchronizing your sense of where in the game world your character is). But it's only a 1-2ms difference either way. Other relevant characteristics, such as motion blur and brightness can supposedly get close (more tweakable on some TNs). And given how much cheaper CRTs can still be found for, I see no point in these TN monitors for your or my use case.

[tsarri]

Hi All,

I've been waiting for this monitors release like the rest of us for some time now but I seem to be hearing mixed reviews which have left me unsure on the purchase.

Can anyone please give me some advice on who may have tried the monitor and a high refresh OLED. Im currently torn between this and the 480hz OLED from ASUS. Is there a big difference in motion clarity between either monitor?

My other concern as I play FPS titles, is there a perceivable latency difference between either. I was always under the impression that gsyn adds a small amount of delay.

Thanks.

In terms of motion clarity you will notice a difference between 100 and 300 fps. Pulsar is clearer in that range. The difference in terms of latency is negligible, and not realistically noticeable for most people, but 480hz should be marginally faster. Pulsar adds about 4ms of latency on avg. Motion clarity is not everything though and the biggest shock when switching from a good oled will be contrast, colors and overall uniformity which are noticeably worse on a monitor like this. That being said its not as bad as most TN panels.

If you value motion clarity above everything else and play games mainly between the fps range I've mentioned then this is a very good option. But 480hz oled (at the same price) is an overall better monitor and probably what I would recommend for most people if you're willing to deal with a few cons like worse text clarity, vrr flicker and long term burn in risk.