NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV

[olain]

What games are you playing, because I think in something like Overwatch where you have to do a lot of tracking it would be good. Competitive shooters are not really my thing though.

I play PUBG and Battlefield 6, and removing (my definition of) blur would mean that when I "look around" in the game, by moving my FOV quickly, I would more easily be able to spot details like players.

[olain]

I Will return it though, as my 300 hz acer IPS has just as good/bad "motion clarity / blur" whatever in the scenarios I care about, which is moving my FOV quickly.
To sort that, I truly do think I need 1000 FPS and hz.

Are you saying that the kind of blur you’re interested in reducing is when you’re doing the “fixed gaze at crosshairs” play style?

I play PUBG and Battlefield 6, and when I pan the FOV quickly, which I do all the time, I want to easily spot details and enemies, but when the entire contents of the monitor becomes blurry, MUCH more so at 120 than 300 fps, but still at 300 fps, this is made difficult.

[olain]

To sort that, I truly do think I need 1000 FPS and hz.

You just need a proper ≤0,5ms MPRT display, which Pulsar isn't anywhere close to.
Ideally, a non-buggy ULMB2 would work wonders as well

I politely have to disagree with you, I used to play professional CS 1.6 on my legendary HP p1230 CRT with a Diamondtron NF tube, and playing anything less than 300 fps @ 160 hz was terrible. I'm pretty sure that monitor had a <0,5 MPRT.

[brownvim]

What games are you playing, because I think in something like Overwatch where you have to do a lot of tracking it would be good. Competitive shooters are not really my thing though.

I play PUBG and Battlefield 6, and removing (my definition of) blur would mean that when I "look around" in the game, by moving my FOV quickly, I would more easily be able to spot details like players.

Maybe a high-Hz OLED will feel clearer to you. I think Tim (Hardware Unboxed) played Battlefield with the Pulsar monitor in his review and he saw noticeable improvements in motion.

Or your monitor could be faulty.

[kyube]

-PUBG & BF6 mention-

I hope you've set the in-game cap in PUBG to 324FPS when you've tried Pulsar (while enabling VSYNC in-game & GSYNC in NvCpl, as the game lacks Reflex)
The larger cap is mandatory to avoid disengaging GSYNC behavior.
Meanwhile, on fixed refresh rate strobing, life would be much easier. It's as simple as:
- Create a 300Hz custom resolution
- Enable DyAc & tune persistence (pulse width) with the Blurbusters Utility to a clarity / luminance target you're OK with
Since you play PUBG & BF6, XL2566K should be the best option for those games (the former is a unoptimized mess, while in the latter you're limited to ~300FPS)

I politely have to disagree with you, I used to play professional CS 1.6 on my legendary HP p1230 CRT with a Diamondtron NF tube, and playing anything less than 300 fps @ 160 hz was terrible. I'm pretty sure that monitor had a <0,5 MPRT.

You don't change the sample rate when you run FrRate > RefRate
Maybe this image might make it more clear on what the end-goal of a digital electronic visual display is supposed to be:

All you've done with that specific setup you've mentioned is lower the total system latency & introduce 'tearing' ('phase-shift'-like temporal artifact)
If this is a setup that you deem as "optimal" in terms of peak viewing experience, then my ~0,5ms MPRT point still stands.
All you're doing with native (relatively high) refresh rate strobing (e.g.: XL2566K with DyAc+) is removing both the stroboscopic effect (what causes the doube imaging; aka low sample rate) and removing the eye-tracked motion blur (visual artifact of too high latency to our eyes)

[brownvim]

@Chief Blur Buster — I was mainly hoping to hear your take on this. Do you think a well-implemented GPU/driver-level ShaderBeam-style solution could have delivered similar (or better) results than the current monitor-hardware Pulsar approach, without needing all that vendor coordination?

TLDR:
For reliability: Pulsar outperforms by a wide margin. You need a lot of optimizing in ShaderBeam
For crosstalk: CRT currently outperforms.
For 50Hz PAL and 60Hz NTSC support: CRT currently outperforms (until firmware upgrade).
For blur: CRT already outperforms the fixed-Hz feature of Pulsar for some refresh rates. CRT can go sub-10% persistence for 60fps on 720Hz OLED today, while Pulsar pulsewidth is not adjustable.
For lag: Currently much worse. The dealkiller for esports.

Lag can be reduced later. This question is already answered halfway down at www.blurbusters.com/open-source-display
The software CRT has to be at a different location than ShaderBeam (enforced due to arbitrary stuff), but it can perform close to hardware if it's a beamraced box-in-middle implementation.

Also, motion blur is throttled by MaxHz, so I'd need 2000 Hz OLED to get 1/2000sec 0.5ms MPRT (+ 0.25ms softening for temporal blending effects) for 40-700fps range. I'd need 3:1 margin above MaxHz.

For 360Hz Pulsar to get similar results at fixed Hz at 25% persistence, you'd need 360 * 4 = 1440Hz. But I need a higher MaxHz for reliable temporal blending.

CRT doesn't have to be done at the computer level. It can be done on a GPU-chip level (if NVIDIA adds native lagless refresh cycle shader support later). It can be done in a box-in-middle level like a Retrotink 4K. It can be done in a display firmware.

- Operating Systems (e.g. Valve SteamOS, Microsoft Windows, Apple MacOS/iOS, Linux);
- GPU driver vendors (e.g. NVIDIA, AMD, Intel, Qualcomm);
- Display manufacturers (the whole industry);
- Video Processor Vendors and Video Capture Vendors (e.g. Retrotink, Elecard);
- Independent Software Vendors (e.g. ShaderBeam, RetroArch, Reshade, games, virtual display drivers)

Thanks for the reply, interesting and promising that SteamOS is on board implementing it.

Your link to the Open Source Display article has a typo in it but I found and read it.

Lots of pros and cons to different methods and even games still. Looking forward to seeing a really bright 60 Hz mode on the Pulsar though — as I tried ShaderBeam and the brightness hit was too much for my liking, but it cleared up the 120 Hz artefacts in Nioh 3 compared to the Pulsar. Also not totally reliable with some noticeable flicker. Need to test it more.

I don't think the Pulsar monitor should be marketed for competitive shooters, its strengths are in other games. They did only demo it at CES using Anno with a lot of panning. However, all of NVIDIA’s marketing was really pushing the competitive shooter angle hard, which I think was quite overdone.

I can see how some people have been let down by it, but I also think it's also a mix of how different people see blur — whether it's during tracking moving objects or fast fixed camera panning / look-around movements.

[hamza_tm]

Does anyone know of any measurements for how much input lag/delay pulsar adds?

[kyube]

Does anyone know of any measurements for how much input lag/delay pulsar adds?

Battle(non)sense's preliminary data

[purplemelon1]

To sort that, I truly do think I need 1000 FPS and hz.

You just need a proper ≤0,5ms MPRT display, which Pulsar isn't anywhere close to.
Ideally, a non-buggy ULMB2 would work wonders as well

I politely have to disagree with you, I used to play professional CS 1.6 on my legendary HP p1230 CRT with a Diamondtron NF tube, and playing anything less than 300 fps @ 160 hz was terrible. I'm pretty sure that monitor had a <0,5 MPRT.

The phosphors would've limited it to 1.0ms to 1.1ms. (910hz) persistence.. I think it's just that the games have much more detail now.

Have you tried cs 1.6 with pulsar? Can you share those types of experiences

Oh also do not forget that eyesight worsening makes it harder to see even in motion. That is also likely after 20 years. If you need to be half the distance to see than you did back then, then 50 pixels from back then would be blurred to 100 pixels from today. (Shoddy math for the sake of illustration).

So even with corrected vision. You may need 1800hz instead of the 900hz just to see the same. In that one to one situation. With that crt.

[Chief Blur Buster]

So even with corrected vision. You may need 1800hz instead of the 900hz just to see the same. In that one to one situation. With that crt.

It's more the following:
- Spatial blurring, not temporal blurring (focus issue, astigmastism issue, etc)
- Poorer ability to eyetrack (can't track moving object as well as you used to).

The poorer ability to focus will blur everything (moving or otherwise). In other words, add more blur to stationary images & add more blur to moving images.

You can compare to staring at a photograph:

1. A 1/480sec camera shutter photograph still looks the same amount of motion blur no matter how old and young you are.
2. However, poorer focus means the whole photograph is blurrier, but that is regardless of whether the photograph is in motion or not.

The same thing happens to displays, since when you exclude GtG (as near 0 as possible), then 480fps 480Hz OLED = identical motion blur to a 1/480sec photograph.

So spatial blurring will worsen motion blurring, but your spatial blurring will still be blurring static images. It's possible for spatial human vision issues to be much more than even the (temporal) motion blur of the refreshtime differences of 240Hz vs 10,000Hz, so no amount of refresh rate improvement can help in this case.