NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV

[kyube]

i dont understand this post, Pulsar mode aside, my benq and asus both with rolling scan doesnt have any issue being clear despite same tech

It's purely marketing. It's funny that they're devaluing their own tuning (ULMB2) on the PG27AQN
Perhaps even some kind of hardware limitation, which they cannot "patch out" like they've been doing the past few months.

PG27AQN 960 px/s (?, unsure) ULMB2 UFO pursuit photographs by MUB/HUB


XL2566K 960 px/s (?, unsure) DyAc+ UFO pursuit photographs by MUB/HUB


RGB 5 OSRTT – AOCPulsar model


RGB 10 OSRTT – PGA27QN


The new QHD@360Hz panels are much faster than predecessors.
Note that RGB 10 is a more loose target, while RGB 5 is the stricter one.
This implies that the PG27AQN is even worse @ 360Hz if RGB 5 offset was used.
Which is why the claim of "crosstalk" is even more bizarre to me, as we're working with a much faster panel than their predecessor... which already had a very low amount of crosstalk.

[MSIfanboy]

i think the main reason, is they want to keep the brightness super high, or the crosstalk low, probably the former, if its around 33% less clear than pg27aqn at the same pixel speed, i am not sure how much less max brightness it would have

[kyube]

i think the main reason, is they want to keep the brightness super high, or the crosstalk low, probably the former, if its around 33% less clear than pg27aqn at the same pixel speed, i am not sure how much less max brightness it would have

That theory likely doesn't hold up, since the XG27AQNGV (+1600 cd/m²) has a much larger voltage boosting behavior over the PG27AQN (<900 cd/m²)
But then again, if they want to let the user use +200cd/m², which I cannot understand why anyone would use in-doors, it might hold up.

I still don't understand why they don't let the user do this choice by themselves. Why not have the choice between global & rolling scan flash present?
Fixed refresh rates for ULMB2 use, a single toggle for Pulsar & ULMB2, the inability to adjust pulse width (<20%) to much lower values on 240 & 360 Hz refresh rates, HDMI 2.0 & the large price tag (for a mediocre implementation) for a QHD@360Hz panel in 2026 are large dealbreakers IMO.
Maybe if it was a QHD@480Hz with HDMI 2.1 FRL6, it'd be more appealing for the asking price.

The 60 Hz mode is a total gimmick.
The 120 Hz global flash mode will likely be decent... assuming they allow the user to hit =<5% PW.

[brownvim]

i dont understand this post, Pulsar mode aside, my benq and asus both with rolling scan doesnt have any issue being clear despite same tech

I thought those monitors don't have rolling scan?

[kyube]

i dont understand this post, Pulsar mode aside, my benq and asus both with rolling scan doesnt have any issue being clear despite same tech

I thought those monitors don't have rolling scan?

He's likely comparing 240-360Hz ULMB2 on the Pulsar models to the XG248QSG (ELMB2) & DyAc2 (46X,66X+,86X,86X+) models, both of which have a more aggressive duty cycle while retaining the same 10-segment implementation.

[brownvim]

The ULMB2 modes for 240hz and 360hz look to me to be just a copy of the Pulsar mode, your just at a fixed refresh rate. Motion clarity and brightness is the same, Pulse Width adjustments do nothing to clarity, apart from lower brightness.

drG-SYNC confirmed 60hz is global flash by that comment, which looks great, far from a "gimmick", its definitely elevated my console experience. It's nice not to have to mess with so many settings (PC) to get good motion clarity too!

If global flash can look like that at 120hz it will be amazing for PC and Consoles.

In regards to ULMB2 working on other fixed refresh rates, I'm guessing the way the backlight works they probably have to tune every single refresh rate from scratch so settled with a few to work on.

[liquidshadowfox]

So the reason they said they wouldn't consider changing the pulse width to 12.5% is because quote

"12.5% pulse width for Pulsar. Unfortunately, a lower pulse width doesn't help with the Rolling Scan 240 and 360 modes, sharpness quickly becomes limited by crosstalk, not pulse width"

Then someone complained the clarity is worse than the PG27AQN despite the red phosphor and it was said:

"PG27AQN uses Global Flash style backlight principle. This makes for sharp center of screen, but has the downside of double image at top and bottom of screen, especially at 360.

Pulsar monitors use a Rolling Scan backlight at 240 and 360. This eliminates the double image at top/bottom of screen. But the middle of screen is not as good in visual quality as in Global Flash case. This is because even thought the middle segment is pulsed at 25%, pixels also receive light from the backlight segment above and below, causing the effective flash to be longer.

It's a tradeoff. Global Flash has a sweet spot and double image artefacts above/below the sweet spot. Rolling Scan has no double image, but isn't as sharp in the middle.

At 60 and 120 Hz, Global Flash can look real good without much double image. FW 1.1.7 will show that for ULMB 120. But at 240 and especially 360 Global Flash would have significant double image.

The strength of Pulsar is that you get good motion clarity, from 90 FPS up, and all the benefits of VRR. No tearing. No stutter. No other monitor has all that. But at 360 it's not as good as the PG27AQN ULMB mid screen."

So based on that response, to my understanding is nvidia locked the duty cycle to 25% because at higher fps, the crosstalk starts to creep in even with the rolling scan and 25% duty cycle allows the strobe to clear up enough of the image but not enough that we would perceive a clear double image. Plus they admitted there's light leakage between the zones so that means the previous zone is actually leaking light into the next zone before the pixels are ready to actually show which contributes to the "fuzziness".

I think they should still attempt to lower the duty cycle a bit, either (that means pick one of these nvidia, preferably the lowest duty cycle that can be picked: 12.5% (x8 motion clarity boost), 16.667% (middle x6 motion clarity boost) or 20% (x5 motion clarity boost) for gsync pulsar. A shorter flash would reduce the time there's light leakage which reduces how long there's an overlap of light between zones while making the image much clearer. The image will look darker but I'd argue even without "ambient adaptive brightness" enabled I have my brightness with pulsar turned on set to 200 out of 500 which means that extra brightness won't be missed! Even if there's crosstalk, I'd argue the crosstalk would be significantly less than any competing product on the market with VRR + Strobe (elmb sync and aim stabilizer sync comes no where close to the overdrive tuning and crosstalk).

When I used the pg27aqn (I still have it as a secondary monitor) the ULMB 2 240 hz looked almost close to crosstalk free across the whole screen! If they use the ULMB 2 240 hz mode of the pg27aqn as a reference of "acceptable" crosstalk, I'd argue it's worth the trade off of having a little crosstalk on the top and bottom edge of the screen. I'd argue they should release this as an "Enthusiast" firmware and then leave the 25% duty cycle firmware for the "stable" branch those users will install by default, that would be a big benefit of having such a nice web interface to quickly and easily change firmware versions.

This is just my 2 cents, I know they are working hard to improve gsync pulsar (especially the input lag) but personally I think this monitor can do better with pulsar enabled at higher refresh rates even if there's a little crosstalk, I'd argue they should tune the crosstalk to only be a sliver at the top and most of it at the bottom since that's where most games have HUD elements that don't exactly matter too much if there's a little crosstalk.