Blur Busters Forums

I think it'd be interesting to see what can be achieved with a 240 hz OLED with a hardware strobbed solution like a fan or strobbed glasses. The other thing keeping me from oled is the text fringing since I work with a lot of text documents. I think Imma stick to LCD.

Chief Blur Buster wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2023, 23:40

240Hz OLED already has less motion blur than 360Hz IPS LCD.

So Hz-for-Hz, OLED has about a 1.5x to 2x advantage over LCD.

If you dislike strobing, and want "least blur per frametime", then OLED is the best performer. Removed from significant GtG bottlenecks, 240fps on OLED pretty much follows Blur Busters Law linearly (Every 1ms of frametime translates to 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec).

Why does the Asus IPS 360Hz here looks like it's outperforming the OLED 240Hz though? Isn't the OLED supposed to at least match performance of a 360Hz IPS panel if not achieving better results? Or is the Asus PG27AQN just abnormally good IPS monitor? (Picture taken from Optimum Tech's video)

(A) There is enough error margins between all the 360Hz models to slightly outperform/underperform the OLED.

(B) Also, there's camera tracking error margin. Also, since there's no sync track, it's hard to accurately pursuit game motion -- there is no proof of camera tracking accuracy.

(C) Even when the 360Hz LCD outperforms, you need to pay more to upgrade your GPU to allow 360fps instead of 240fps. If your existing GPU can only do 240fps, then a 240Hz OLED still outperforms the 360Hz LCD "at the same frame rates".

So there's a lot of error margins involved. But yes, some 360Hz LCDs (at 360fps) can slightly outperform a 240Hz OLED (at 240fps). But you need to pony up the 1.5x frame rate in order to barely do that. And you won't be able to on all 360Hz LCDs -- only the best ones. If your game can't do 360fps -- then ask yourself, is it worth paying extra for a faster CPU and GPU, to get the 1.5x frame rate performance, necessary to get these two side by sides?

Both have their pros/cons but they are quite subtle.

Still...

I wish we'd stop this refresh rate incrementalism and see more geometrics (240 -> 480 -> 1000). That's why an article lagless frame generation article for tomorrow's 1000Hz was posted.

Chief Blur Buster wrote: ↑

16 Jul 2023, 22:19

(C) Even when the 360Hz LCD outperforms, you need to pay more to upgrade your GPU to allow 360fps instead of 240fps. If your existing GPU can only do 240fps, then a 240Hz OLED still outperforms the 360Hz LCD "at the same frame rates".

To add on to your point, fighting games which are very competitive are locked to 60 or 120 FPS at best, something I'm still butthurt over as a fan of the genre especially after the recent Street Fighter 6 release that was locked to 60 FPS, and there is still no word on this for the upcoming Tekken 8 release.

Yes. Framerate-for-framerate, OLED always motionblur-outpeforms LCD at the same framerate. You play 120fps, you will always get it a bit clearer on OLED than even the world's best LCD.

The latency differentials may be different (e.g. Certain OLEDs laggier than LCDs), but if unstrobed motion clarity is your priority...

You need 360fps 360Hz LCD for any chance of motionblur-outperforming 240fps 240Hz OLED.

Now that said, brute Hz can (and does) lower latency, even at the cost of a bit slower pixel response. If you configure your display to maximum Hz (or enable VRR), then those "60fps" frames will generally scanout in 1/360sec on 360Hz LCD, and in 1/240sec on 240Hz LCD -- giving you latency reductions. But the faster OLED GtG may rabbit ahead in latency, and compensate somewhat for the difference. But it all depends on the processing inside the monitor (the tapedelay effect per pixel).

Check latency-testing websites such as RTINGS that test latency. If you can do 120fps at 240Hz (either fixed Hz or VRR), then check the 240Hz latency number rather than the 120Hz latency number. Lower frame rates during higher Hz generally always has lower lag than the same frame rate at lower Hz on the same screen.

You will need to make decisions based on your priorities (blur? latency? both?)

asus 360hz IPS lg 240hz OLED

also has to be some human error element to these rting tests, i guess its up to the guy doing the tests to find the clearest image from several images

MSIfanboy wrote: ↑

20 Jul 2023, 11:25

also has to be some human error element to these rting tests, i guess its up to the guy doing the tests to find the clearest image from several images

This ^

They're never going to be able to achieve exactly 1:1 comparisons between different models using a camera, even with an identical camera and camera settings (micro differences in monitor distance and angle from camera, how the given panel interacts with the camera sensor, shot quality, lighting changes, etc).

That said, it's "good enough" if done well, but obviously not a full replacement for comparing them all directly in person.

not saying UFO test isnt useful, but on some monitors, if i turn up max overdrive, you can clearly see pixel overshoot in the ufo test

but i dont even notice it in an actual game

only time i ever notice overshoot in in something like kovaaks with plain grey walls

deleted

MSIfanboy wrote: ↑

22 Jul 2023, 03:49

some of the rtings tests you dont know how they tested, like did they use overdrive in BFI test, what brightness/contrast/gamma did they use in some of the monitor brightness tests, and even some of there info is wrong, listing 24.5 inch panels as 25 inch (diagonal) and wrong PPI on some monitors, stuff like that

Yes, but again, better than nothing; just a few years ago, TFTCentral was the only in-depth (English language) monitor reviewer to speak of, and their reviews for the newest monitors were (and are) very infrequent.

Consistently buying and reviewing all the newest gaming monitors and trying to achieve even close to what could be considered a cohesive test bench across different models is no simple task, so there are bound to be inconsistencies here and there. Just something to keep in mind while shopping and comparing.