NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV

[g1nk0123]

Image quality is significantly better than Zowie’s TN panels (as expected).
But: Viewing angles and color reproduction - especially black levels- are on an entirely different level with an OLED. No contest here.

Do you mean that the black levels and color etc. are "on par" with OLEDs? Unlike TNs?

No, what I mean is that while colors are way better than on a TN panel, OLEDs are on a whole other league of their own (as expected basically)

[tsarri]

But what about the lower fps performance - mainly the 60-100 fps region? A lot of reviewers mention how a Pulsar monitor can offset the cost of upgrading a GPU, for example, but then show high refresh rate gameplay examples. There's a contradiction here - Pulsar is advertised as being a combo of Gsync and ULMB - i.e., good for fluctuating FPS AND motion clarity, but then there's the caveat of flicker at <90Hz ?? So which is it? I understand that people are waiting for the new firmware to drop, but I heard that even the min of 75Hz that's supported now results in flicker. Can anyone with hands-on experience confirm?

I am mainly considering Pulsar for both ~100 FPS singleplayer titles, but as well for the occasional high refresh rate multiplayer. I guess what I'm asking is: "Is Pulsar worth it for someone who plays at ~90fps instead of 360 more often than not?

Wait for the firmware update to see how it improves motion performance under 100 fps. For now I don't personally think its worth spending $600-$700 for an ips monitor with pulsar performing the way it does at that refresh rate range.

[MPRT|GTFO]

• All graphics cards since Maxwell lack a RAMDAC to natively support CRTs, limiting their total bandwidth to some extent & introducing additional processing latency into the chain

I do use a 980Ti, because it fits my need well, but I'm under the impression that most VGA adapters won't have these issues for Dankerino's use case. At least for low resolutions (as in this case) the bandwidth requirement is pretty low. And don't the simpler adapter designs simply convert to analogue on the fly, without a latency-adding whole-frame buffer that would add cost? AFAIK more common issues with some generic adapters are support for custom resolutions and refresh rates, and high resolution support/quality, but there are good models.

• Having the physical space & table rigidity for them

Space can be an issue for some, table rigidity - not really, unless it's an airplane seat table or something

• Finding a (trinitron) tube that's of decent quality (sharpness, physical quality etc.)

For 1280x960 it shouldn't be hard to find a model that's sharp enough - I think most 19" and up that aren't too old can do that. Main issues to look out for are phosphors that are too worn out leading to poor brightness that can't be compensated for, or generally too many hours of use, which can be checked on many models in the standard OSD menu or service menu.

• Extreme radiated EMI can be a dealbreaker for chasing best possible signal integrity (not to mention a large health concern)

You mean a CRT interfering with other electronics' signals? I don't think that's a more common issue than with other generic electronics. Getting a signal to a CRT to do the most out of high resolutions can be tricky, but 1280x960 is an easy low target for CRTs, VGA cables and adapters.
As for health concerns: it's manageable. Prefer later models with protections and thick front glass, turn it off when not playing. It won't be a high dose by itself, but consider your total exposure to ionizing radiation if you work as an airman, X-ray operator or something like that. Do your own due diligence.

• Most “Esports” games don't allow 4:3 resolutions anymore

You can stretch, letterbox, etc. any resolution on a CRT if needed. But wow, no 4:3 resolutions on a PC Esports FPS? Such an engineering decision would make me question everything about such a game and whether it's even worth playing over alternatives.

• Inability to set them up ergonomically in eye-level due to their monstrous weight

Again, not something you can't work around if needed.

Models such as the XG2431, XL2566K, DyAc2 panels (e.g.: 46X+, 66X+, 86X, 86X+), 360Hz IPS GSYNC models (e..g: PG259QN) and even the Pulsar panels (using the ULMB2 fixed refresh rate mode) all satisfy the “backlight strobing in esports games” use-case far better than CRTs.
For a slightly higher PPI option, AOC Q25G4SR (and enduring KSF fringing) or the upcoming P245MS Pro+ (24.5" QHD 380Hz) are more desirable
CRTs for high FPS esports gaming are, by all essence, obsolete.
Even for the <100Hz segment, the XG2431 or older DyAc1 models are much better options.

They're probably good for Dankerino's use case, especially considering that the lower resolution already reduces the impact of motion blur.
However, your general claim about CRTs for high FPS esports is unfortunately not confirmed by performance figures, for at least some use cases. When motion blur is important for e.g. tracking things top to bottom of the screen in about 1/3 of a second, and vertical resolution is also important, a good CRT setup can do well over 1080 pixels vertical resolution very well (less well in the corners of the screen, but they are less important). Doing the math, it turns out I need less than 0.3ms MPRT. And I am looking to upgrade my resolution and screen size, hence I am considering 1440p and higher and 26.5" and higher, like these Pulsar models. I also don't want to increase the average pixel latency, hence looking at LCDs above 240Hz. Hence I haven't been convinced that any existing model can really meet that need yet, unfortunately.

These Pulsar models suggest that the goal is entirely achievable, by reducing the ULMB 2 pulse width to about 1/4 of where it is now, the brightness should still be close to or higher than that of a CRT. Close attempt. Alas, no upgrade path for now.

[liquidshadowfox]

I just noticed something! Based on the oscillographs MUB provided, the main pulse width is unproportionally narrower at the bottom end and wider at the top end of the range. That means pulse width is not a fixed 25%. I measured them manually, then transferred the findings to one of my MPRT charts to see how it scales over the range. It's a less steep straight line that intersects with advertised 25% line at 120 fps. So it still scales linearly, just not in a way we are used to. After some rounding up this is what I got:

• 100 fps * 23.8% = ~2.4 ms
• 120 fps * 25% = ~2.1 ms
• 144 fps * 26.5% = ~1.8 ms
• 170 fps * 28.1% = ~1.7 ms
• 240 fps * 32.5% = ~1.4 ms
• 330 fps * 38.1% = ~1.2 ms
• 360 fps * 40% = ~1.1 ms

Interesting behavior! Not sure if this is intentional or some limitations are at question. Also, my findings don't fully correspond with their "Over 1000 Hz Effective Motion Clarity" claim. However it does go beyond "quadruple motion clarity" below 120 fps.

The chart allowed me to visualize a shortcut formula for approximate Pulsar MPRT target (main pulse):

• MPRT = (1000/frame rate)*0.175 + 0.625

For now formula works for 360Hz input and VRR frames below. It’s still unclear how Pulsar scales across different input frequencies, or how it behaves with VRR off (ULMB 2). Also beware of the LFC at <90 fps. Things might change for bottom range if they introduce algorithms in firmware update.


Pulsar MPRT 2026.png


MUB Pulsar 98 Hz fps

MUB Pulsar 170 Hz fps.jpg


MUB Pulsar 239 Hz fps

MUB Pulsar 330 Hz fps.jpg

Best case scenario they pull the same thing they did with the pg27aqn when they did that firmware update to enhance ULMB 2 + improve the overdrive where they go "hey, turns out we can make our pulsar monitors do 25% duty cycle across the board" and then 360 hz will actually look even sharper than it already does.

[Argus]

correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like low fps gaming <120 ish fps on pulsar isn't looking too good
I'm really disappointed since it seems like the one of the key points of pulsar is allow low fps to have better clarity and I was hoping I could play some classic games on this monitor without issues
I'm not a fan of framegen either so playing a 60fps locked game doubled to 120 is a no go for me. 30 fps, forget about it since there's too many artifacts. For 120fps locked games and below, it seems better to just keep your refresh rate locked at 240hz or 360hz with vrr disabled.
Just gonna have to wait for the mythical 1080hz monitor at this point if they don't work on improving pulsar at all

[liquidshadowfox]

correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like low fps gaming <120 ish fps on pulsar isn't looking too good
I'm really disappointed since it seems like the one of the key points of pulsar is allow low fps to have better clarity and I was hoping I could play some classic games on this monitor without issues
I'm not a fan of framegen either so playing a 60fps locked game doubled to 120 is a no go for me. 30 fps, forget about it since there's too many artifacts. For 120fps locked games and below, it seems better to just keep your refresh rate locked at 240hz or 360hz with vrr disabled.
Just gonna have to wait for the mythical 1080hz monitor at this point if they don't work on improving pulsar at all

There's currently a bug in the Gsync pulsar module that activates LFC below 90 - 95 fps that shouldn't be activating (causing crosstalk like artifacts). Nvidia says they will release a firmware update that will expand pulsar to work down to 48 hz - 360 hz and presumably it'll fix the low fps artifacts, Chief blur buster also found that Gsync pulsar has compensation pulse (2nd pulse past the first one) to compensate for any fps variances and only turns off the 2nd pulse if your fps > min fps for pulsar + 20. Chief is trying to petition them to add an option to make it min strobe fps + 2. That means the following as an example:

Lets say you playing a game locked at 75 fps (the minimum that gsync pulsar currently allows), if your fps dips to 60 momentarily but goes back up to 75 fps, the compensation pulse never deactivates correctly which leads to artificing until your fps actually goes 75 fps + 20 fps = 95 fps. Assuming the next firmware update expands Gsync pulsar down to 48 hz, that would in theory mean if they keep the same formula that your fps would only have to reach 48 + 20 = 68 fps in order to de-activate the compensation pulse. This will work for most games locked above 68 fps but it would probably be better if they allowed a lower threshold like + 10 or + 2, we will have to wait and see what they do with the next firmware update.

[Mdruy1]

But what about the lower fps performance - mainly the 60-100 fps region? A lot of reviewers mention how a Pulsar monitor can offset the cost of upgrading a GPU, for example, but then show high refresh rate gameplay examples. There's a contradiction here - Pulsar is advertised as being a combo of Gsync and ULMB - i.e., good for fluctuating FPS AND motion clarity, but then there's the caveat of flicker at <90Hz ?? So which is it? I understand that people are waiting for the new firmware to drop, but I heard that even the min of 75Hz that's supported now results in flicker. Can anyone with hands-on experience confirm?

I am mainly considering Pulsar for both ~100 FPS singleplayer titles, but as well for the occasional high refresh rate multiplayer. I guess what I'm asking is: "Is Pulsar worth it for someone who plays at ~90fps instead of 360 more often than not?

Wait for the firmware update to see how it improves motion performance under 100 fps. For now I don't personally think its worth spending $600-$700 for an ips monitor with pulsar performing the way it does at that refresh rate range.

Wym firmware update? Do you have source / proof?

[liquidshadowfox]

But what about the lower fps performance - mainly the 60-100 fps region? A lot of reviewers mention how a Pulsar monitor can offset the cost of upgrading a GPU, for example, but then show high refresh rate gameplay examples. There's a contradiction here - Pulsar is advertised as being a combo of Gsync and ULMB - i.e., good for fluctuating FPS AND motion clarity, but then there's the caveat of flicker at <90Hz ?? So which is it? I understand that people are waiting for the new firmware to drop, but I heard that even the min of 75Hz that's supported now results in flicker. Can anyone with hands-on experience confirm?

I am mainly considering Pulsar for both ~100 FPS singleplayer titles, but as well for the occasional high refresh rate multiplayer. I guess what I'm asking is: "Is Pulsar worth it for someone who plays at ~90fps instead of 360 more often than not?

Wait for the firmware update to see how it improves motion performance under 100 fps. For now I don't personally think its worth spending $600-$700 for an ips monitor with pulsar performing the way it does at that refresh rate range.

Wym firmware update? Do you have source / proof?

We only have this to go on, not sure if anyone has more proof than this
https://blurbusters.com/nvidia-listened ... ude-60-hz/

[MSIfanboy]

wasnt the update expected late january, i wonder if monitors unboxed, optimum tech and badseed are waiting for the update before making a review of the monitors

[bbuser]

wasnt the update expected late january, i wonder if monitors unboxed, optimum tech and badseed are waiting for the update before making a review of the monitors

It was due in February, and all the reviews are without the firmware update.