Thank you for shooting and posting the video! It looked quite a bit better than what I was seeing, and I could get pretty close with my own unit by lowering the contrast setting.
However yours looks slightly cleaner, which i'd imagine I could chalk up to unit variation or simply room temperature variation as I have a bit more overshoot on mine.
In my experience the values shown in nvcp sometimes simply dont update and other times shows values based on some earlier configuration, so it'll show 1400kHz pixel clock in nvcp but the monitor reports a different much lower value when actually testing it. I've also seen the values for pixel clock and horizontal scan frequency trade places.
I want to make it clear that I am not trying to undermine any findings or experiences you have, and I am sorry if it ever came across as such. I just want to help by adding my own findings.
tldr: MY EXPERIENCE is that the 390hz IPS FEELS better, while the 240hz TN PERFORMS better. I think you might get what you want from simply switching to a faster panel(lower response times). If you want to use some version of Dyac+/VRB make sure you can maintain atleast fps=hz or higher, if your fps is lower than your monitors hz when using motion blur reduction modes it will introduce double-images.Caronizeeee wrote: ↑02 Apr 2022, 19:44Guys, I'm thinking of upgrading my Alienware AW2518HF 240hz. I would like a monitor with less motion blur and I was in doubt between the XL2546k from Benq and the XV252Q F from Acer (Aopen). I know they both have technology to reduce motion blur. Is Dyac+ MUCH better than the XV252Q F's VRB? Does 390hz make A LOT of difference compared to Benq's 240? I would like to be able to move the screen quickly and see as much information as possible, without blurring. What would be the best choice?
I've had the XV252Q F for a couple months now, coming from a 240hz TN monitor(HP Omen X 25f). At this point in time, and with only these 2 monitors for reference, I don't think I could recommend a 240hz+ IPS panel to anyone who highly prioritizes their in-game performance, even though I would easily have recommended it when I first bought it. However the AOC 24G2ZU and the Viewsonic XG2431 might change my tune if I ever get a chance to try them.
The 390hz feels quite a bit snappier and smoother, especially when going back down to 240hz, however I simply perform better with the 240hz TN panel.
Even though the XV252Q F on 390hz looks very clean on testufo compared to the X 25f on 240hz, when actually in-game it's not so cut and dry for me. I have a significantly easier time with "target acquisition" and keeping track of enemies in close-quarter-combat when using the X 25f, it's not that I "can't see" when using the XV252Q F at 390hz, but it sure feels like i can't.
I actually feel like and believe that I perform better with the XV252Q F set to 144hz rather than 240hz or higher, be it placebo or not. Maybe the relationship between response time and refreshrate is more important than I thought.


