Blur Busters Forums

mawi wrote: ↑

11 Aug 2026, 07:44

liquidshadowfox wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2026, 11:40

Bro I really just wish nvidia would allow us to have an alternative pulsar mode with reduced duty cycle and reduced max brightness. I want at LEAST 20% (5x) duty cycle if they REALLY need to stay close to their 25% duty cycle target or 16.67% duty cycle (x6) if they can offer it. My room isn't completely dark but some games I play are still a little too bright for my eyes with pulsar set to minimum brightness (even with adaptive brightness off) and ULMB 2 mode works perfectly with lower duty cycle but it's not adaptive

i am not sure if its the same but i have a similar experience with CS2. When playing normal games on online servers (with similar settings as you, also rtss, vsync off etc.), its all looking fine. avg fps are maxed out, 1% lows are also around 300, looks very nice.

When I play workshop maps for aim training (especially prefire maps) they take place on the standard maps but with some modifications ans bots shooting at you.
I know since months these maps perform worse than standard games. Especially on my 4070 I had much lower 1% fps on these maps. But since I have the 5070ti, I also have around 300 fps 1% lows on these maps. But they still look weird. When panning the mouse fast, Its just not clean and smooth, as you said it looks a bit like double images.

When I reduce the fps to 240 it does not change. On standard maps 240 fps look perfectly clear and smooth. On these prefire aim maps they do not, although I have avg and 1% lows perfectly aligned.

Maybe I have to track the 0.01% lows as well. But where does it stop...

They mentioned the next firmware update will improve Gsync pulsar somewhat so we can only hope it'll be more consistent in motion in the coming update.

Morphy wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2026, 08:36

I think if they were to shorten the pulse and increase voltage to maintain brightness, the residual glow would persist before the next pulse as there is a smaller window/frametime for the light to dissipate as you go up the hertz range.

See, I would accept this explanation, if other vendors didn't implement the same exact method (global scan bstrobing) they're doing on these panels but with better performance, but this is not the case.
The most confusing part to me is the fact they've forsaken both brightness (by using less voltage boosting) & effective motion clarity
on these 240Hz & 360Hz modes... which is bizarre.
The complaints from my side would be far less if they'd use the same voltage boosting as they're doing on 60-120Hz ULMB & gimp the total effective motion clarity... but neither are a thing.

Nevertheless:
Here's an example of how 120Hz, 240Hz & 360Hz ULMB2 should stack up.
Note: This is only theory for now, using linear interpolation. Exact data isn't know as of the date of writing
The PW=10 @ 120Hz point is likely a very optimistic estimate.



As it stands now, based on the small sample data we got from Nvidia & the linear interpolation graph, only 120Hz ULMB2 PW<25 is “usable” for fast-paced games & can be claimed to be “CRT-like”
Close second would likely be 240-360Hz ULMB2 at similar settings, but I'd rather use the former.
Though, it highly depends on the frame rate you're getting & whether one is willing to sacrifice the reduction in sample rate (“smoothness”)

Morphy wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2026, 08:36

Similar to the artifacts of a crt at higher hertz.

I somewhat can't recall this artifacting, do you perhaps have a visual example?

Running an RTX 3090 eGPU setup over OCuLink. G-SYNC and ULMB2 both work fine on my XG27AQNGV, but when Pulsar is active in the OSD with zero visible effect. Ruled out drivers, cables, HDR, color modes, lastest firmware, and fullscreen mode across multiple games. Anyone dealt with this on an eGPU setup, or have ideas what else to check? I can see the strobing working with a slow mo camera with Pulsar active, so there has to be some kind of timing error. I would really like to get this to work if possible on my setup.

kyube wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2026, 06:32

The most confusing part to me is

You are unable to contact drG-SYNC on the GeForce Forum?

Ferdin wrote: ↑

13 Aug 2026, 02:21

You are unable to contact drG-SYNC on the GeForce Forum?

I don't know why, but I'm unable to make a post in the main Pulsar thread. I've contacted him in a DM, let's see if he'll reply

To diverge from the reply, I've decided to plot how ULMB2 used to behave on the PG27AQN vs the XG27AQNGV (based on linear interpolation data from the new FW 1.1.9)
The data for PG27AQN is based on TFTCentral's & Jisakuhibi's review. Linear interpolation was used.



Note: PG27AQN should have ~1000 cd/m² voltage boosting, while XG27AQNGV has ~1500–1700 cd/m²