Blur Busters Forums

I have the Asus one and every things works flawlessly. The on display menu could be better to handle but from a overall product point there is nothing wrong with this one.

RonsonPL wrote: ↑

19 Aug 2026, 06:32

There's currently a very good promo on this one in my country, but I really value low refreshate motion quality. Currently I have almost perfect display for 60Hz and actually for anything between 50 and 120fps.
I am extremely demanding in terms of motion clarity. Not even sure if Puslar satisfies my needs or not, but I don't want to get the wrong Pulsar.

What's your current display? Based on that information, one can give you more information on whether this model will be an upgrade for you.
For the 60–100 Hz range: Only CRTs, MBR BenQ's (XL2411P & older), XG2431 & XG27AQNGV (& it's derivatives) are able to strobe in these refresh rate regions.
100–120 Hz region has a much larger set of models

Treat Pulsar (VRR+strobing) as "working as intended" in the region of 100–330 Hz. Be aware that due to variable refresh rate, your game's output dictates total achievable effective motion clarity.
Fixed refresh rate ULMB2 @ 60 Hz & ULMB2 @ 120 Hz is much sharper in eye-tracked motion than Pulsar.

Grasshopper85 wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 20:37

How does the xg27aqngv compare to the xl2568x+ for a BR like PUBG?

I have the zowie but wondering if I should switch to the g-sync pulsar or even the new zowie xq2566x monitor?

I had the XL2586X 540Hz before, so I can compare it directly with the XG27AQNGV. For PUBG specifically, I would say the Zowie has a slight advantage, mainly because of its color and visibility options. The amount of color/vibrance adjustment is insane. Green enemies can barely hide in grass if you set it up properly, and in PUBG visibility comes first, no matter what.

What I really like about the XG27AQNGV, though, is that I can sit much more relaxed while playing. The larger 27-inch screen and much better viewing angles make a real difference. With the XL2586X I always felt like I had to get into a very specific position in front of the monitor to play properly. That can help with focus, but whether that is actually more fun during long sessions is another question.

For Apex Legends and Tarkov, I personally prefer the XG27AQNGV. Both games look extremely clear on it. The Dark Boost/black equalizer is also pretty good in Tarkov, although Tarkov itself isn't nearly as dark during night raids anymore as it used to be. Warzone also looks and feels very good on it. My RTX 5070 can also make custom resolutions on 360hz 1440p. Keep in mind the RTX 40x0 generation and lower cannot do that on 360hz 1440p !!

If I played PUBG and basically nothing else, I would probably go for the new XQ2566X with 1440p on 24.1". I would maybe wait for some more proper reviews first, though. There aren't many reviews yet that really go into the new backlight-strobing technology it uses. The monitor is noticeably thicker because of that tech, so it seems to be quite a different implementation from the older Zowie models.

The options it has to make gas/smoke in BR games more transparent, so enemies can't hide in it as easily, are also very interesting. For PUBG specifically, that kind of visibility feature is exactly what I would want. If PUBG was literally the only game I cared about, I would definitely be looking at that monitor.

That said, the biggest upgrade I made wasn't actually the monitor. It was switching from Intel to AMD.

My current setup is a 9850X3D, 32GB DDR5-6000 CL28, RTX 5070 and ASUS ROG STRIX B850-G GAMING motherboard ( that has a non usb audio controller important for low latency and an Intel LAN), and it feels insane. Just insanely smooth. It actually feels much smoother to me than my previous RTX 5090 FE, GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS TACHYON X motherboard, i9-13900KS and 32GB DDR5-8000 CL38 setup.

If you're still on Intel, I would seriously consider switching to AMD before changing monitors. For me this was the biggest upgrade I ever made in terms of how games actually feel.

The sound is also better, and I really wouldn't underestimate that part. I use the optical output on the ASUS ROG STRIX B850-G GAMING and connect it directly to my DAC through optical. One important thing is to keep the iGPU enabled in the BIOS, just like TheWhale mentions in his guide. I'm only keeping it enabled for the additional audio controller, of course — not to use the iGPU for video output. With it enabled, the 9850X3D can handle the audio path the way the platform is intended to, and in my setup that gives me the best overall sound processing and experience.( I admit I did not test it yet with this audio controller off)

For the BIOS I mostly used TheWhale's guide:
https://youtu.be/yZfbjQkPCx4?is=EY96KduAER--7m8h

I would definitely recommend following his advice about leaving the iGPU enabled rather than disabling it just because you're using a dedicated GPU. Again, this is just for the extra audio controller, not for graphics output. On this setup I want the 9850X3D handling everything as optimally as possible, including the audio side. (Again I did not test this yet with the iGPU audio controller off.)

For Windows I used FR33THY's optimization pack to configure Windows Server and the latest Windows 10 Pro for Warzone. LatencyMon is extremely low on this setup and it has also been stable. In my experience it's a myth that LatencyMon only plays nicely with Intel. The 9850X3D performs extremely well there too.

I also bind every device that is shown in Melody's interrupts assignment checker to different cores using gointeruptpollicy. I have SMT disabled. And imported Calyptos power plan

So yeah, if you're still on Intel, that would be my first upgrade before switching monitors. Going from my 13900KS/5090 setup to the 9850X3D/5070 setup gave me the biggest improvement in smoothness and sound! I've ever experienced.

kyube wrote: ↑

19 Aug 2026, 08:18

What's your current display?
For the 60–100 Hz range: Only CRTs, MBR BenQ's (XL2411P & older), XG2431 & XG27AQNGV (& it's derivatives) are able to strobe in these refresh rate regions.
100–120 Hz region has a much larger set of models

Treat Pulsar (VRR+strobing) as "working as intended" in the region of 100–330 Hz. Be aware that due to variable refresh rate, your game's output dictates total achievable effective motion clarity.
Fixed refresh rate ULMB2 @ 60 Hz & ULMB2 @ 120 Hz is much sharper in eye-tracked motion than Pulsar.

Let me start with this
Reader - skip this post if you search for info, this one has nothing useful for the topic

I have the legend (and now retro) Benq XL2411Z, the model which required me to install firmware manually to achieve single strobe on 60Hz. That one. Been very happy with it ever since, but I cannot connect it to any modern graphics card as it only has DVI input for 1080p120 signal. Time for an upgrade. Or sidegrade. I'll keep two of these XL2411Z just in case one fails, cause I absolutely love 3D Vision.

I wish I could get perfect image in motion also in 75Hz and 85Hz. Flicker is not a big deal for me, as I'd rather play for 15 minutes at 60Hz strobed in ULMB, than not playing at all, and if a game with fast paced motion (or side scrolling) has 60fps cap, I don't even want to play with all that blur. I grew up on CRT TVs in 50Hz PAL system, playing a lot on Atari and Amiga, so I don't mind a bit of flicker, just maybe not as much as 50Hz LCD strobe on XL2411Z That's too much.


Thank you guys for your input. I remember seeing a review of other brand's Pulsar monitor, and there was clearly something which worked OK on them, but much worse on Asus, but my memory is bad and I don't remember now what it was related to. Either 60Hz (glad to hear that's resolved) or that range between 80 and 120. That's the range where even the mighty 9800X3D ends in modern Unreal Stutter 5.0 games. Pretty important. I'll be mostly playing old games and emulators on it, but 80-150fps range in more important for me than 200-360fps range. I'm old and fast competetive games are no longer for me and motion quality does not improve by much just thanks to more frames, (as we know) and could be useful in very niche cases, like future racer with FPP camera at 700km/h.

RonsonPL wrote: ↑

20 Aug 2026, 04:52

I wish I could get perfect image in motion also in 75Hz and 85Hz. Flicker is not a big deal for me, as I'd rather play for 15 minutes at 60Hz strobed in ULMB, than not playing at all, and if a game with fast paced motion (or side scrolling) has 60fps cap, I don't even want to play with all that blur. I grew up on CRT TVs in 50Hz PAL system, playing a lot on Atari and Amiga, so I don't mind a bit of flicker, just maybe not as much as 50Hz LCD strobe on XL2411Z That's too much.

The 60-100Hz refresh rate region, in terms of backlight strobing, has very subpar offerings for 2 decades now...
I have the similar interest as you, but a bit more of a niche one: I was looking for displays which would let me run a custom resolutions to 72Hz & 96Hz for 24FPS video content.

In terms of best possible effective motion clarity:
CRT >> ULMB2 (due to much higher voltage boosting) > BenQ's (I'm somewhat certain that they're higher voltage boosting aka better brightness values than XG) > XG2431
Pick your poison :shrug:

RonsonPL wrote: ↑

20 Aug 2026, 04:52

Either 60Hz (glad to hear that's resolved) or that range between 80 and 120. That's the range where even the mighty 9800X3D ends in modern Unreal Stutter 5.0 games. Pretty important. I'll be mostly playing old games and emulators on it, but 80-150fps range in more important for me than 200-360fps range. I'm old and fast competetive games are no longer for me and motion quality does not improve by much just thanks to more frames, (as we know) and could be useful in very niche cases, like future racer with FPP camera at 700km/h.

Have you considered pairing up those low frame rate games with frame generation?
Nvidia Smooth Motion, DLSS FG or LSFG (fixed 2x/3x) do wonders in unoptimized titles.
This would allow you to run ULMB2 @ 120Hz, which is noticably sharper than ULMB2 @ 60Hz.

kyube wrote: ↑

20 Aug 2026, 05:16

Have you considered pairing up those low frame rate games with frame generation?
Nvidia Smooth Motion, DLSS FG or LSFG (fixed 2x/3x) do wonders in unoptimized titles.
This would allow you to run ULMB2 @ 120Hz, which is noticably sharper than ULMB2 @ 60Hz.

I do hold some hope for FG, but it's still far from perfect and I'll need a Pulsar or OLED monitor to properly test it to form an opinion. I'm afraid I might decide it needs 120+fps real frames to be usable, but hopefully not.
My new PC is still in the boxes, some boxes are still in the stores (not purchased) so it may be a while before I form any judgement.
Thanks for the info though!

I played Final Fantasy 16 and Spider-Man 2 with MFG on my 5090 and MFG is absolut fantistic with Pulsar. It smoothes the framepacing so much that that Pulsar can work properly.

Given that there was enough time for the tech to mature in a way, I wanted to ask for opinions.

I got myself three CRTs, all for different purposes, but mainly for motion clarity of course:

- Sony FW900 for 1920x1200 @ 96Hz
- Sony W900 for 1920x1200 @ 60Hz or e.g. 640x360 @ 60Hz/160Hz
- Sony G520 for 4:3 games

Given the very good motion clarity of the pulsar monitors and that they don’t have phosphor trail artifacts (which I find a bit annoying), would you say pulsar monitors would be an upgrade?

I will never get rid of the W900, simply for 640x360 games, which look amazing on it, but mainly speaking from a motion clarity perspective, is it better than CRTs? Pulsar could at least be a very nice replacement for the FW900, given the higher resolution/hz, brightness and no phosphor trails.

It's one option.

Being that said:

It's already possible to get clearer motion than a Sony FW900 for a few years, using ViewSonic XG2431 calibrated to crosstalk-free zero-trails, but it's a non-VRR verison. It is blurbusters.com/xg2431 and Discorz wrote a longer writeup at blurbusters.com/xg2431-discorz using the special Large Vertical Total trick that most display reviewers never do.

However, for Pulsar, if you use fixed-Hz ULMB2, it is already pretty good -- just that I've already seen what Pulsar 60Hz could do, more than five years ago. Just saying, just saying.

Now, if you are looking for more saturated colors and brighter, high hz OLEDs does a superlative jobs (much closer to CRT, already outperforms plasma TV in motion clarity), if you want a middle-ground display. You do have to get familiar with BFI ratios by viewing (not on CRT -- this testufo is worthless on crt -- it's a special animation specially designed for 240Hz displays) -- www.testufo.com/blackframes ... where 50% BFI only reduces motion blur by 50% and 75% BFI reduces motion blur by 75%.

With CRT simulator at large ratios (e.g. 4:1 or 6:1 ratio like 60fps at 360Hz) you can get pretty clear motion in Super Mario Brother panning by using software BFI at larger ratios than the built-in generic 50%-BFI does in most OLEDs. Sonic Hedgehog will requires higher BFI ratios (e.g. 8:1 ratio, or 12:1 ratio, e.g. 60fps at 480Hz or 720Hz using 7 or 11 black frames and 1 visible frame for 7/8th blur reduction, aka 87.5% less motion blur) to get something that truly reminds you of CRT motion clarity.

One recurring problem is the unreliability of precision of software-based BFI, which is still an ongoing problem that is still undergoing refinement. (Since hardware BFI is annoyingly capped to 50% blur reduction).

So I've presented you multiple options of "sidegrades" from your CRT tubes based on my eyes seeing CRT which I used as a benchmark to attempt to beat using my XG2431 calibration work. XG2431 won't do it out of the box, requires DIY tuning, but at least it's a cheap display to tinker with.

RonsonPL wrote: ↑

20 Aug 2026, 05:40

kyube wrote: ↑

20 Aug 2026, 05:16

Have you considered pairing up those low frame rate games with frame generation?
Nvidia Smooth Motion, DLSS FG or LSFG (fixed 2x/3x) do wonders in unoptimized titles.
This would allow you to run ULMB2 @ 120Hz, which is noticably sharper than ULMB2 @ 60Hz.

I do hold some hope for FG, but it's still far from perfect and I'll need a Pulsar or OLED monitor to properly test it to form an opinion. I'm afraid I might decide it needs 120+fps real frames to be usable, but hopefully not.
My new PC is still in the boxes, some boxes are still in the stores (not purchased) so it may be a while before I form any judgement.
Thanks for the info though!

Pulsar doesn't really need framegen as badly as OLED does, as the organic purity of VRR strobing can work well enough if you keep your framerates in the triple digits. Pulsar does a fantastic job of motion blur reduction that you typically don't need framegen help most of the time.

Now framegen can help push 60fps content to 120fps+ needed for the VRR strobing of Pulsar, so that's where 2x framegen works well there.

Now if you use an OLED:
There's merits to using framegen as a blurbusting method, but I ensposue "GO BIG OR GO HOME".

2x framerate = 50% less motion blur on OLED, if you have Hz headroom
4x framerate = 75% less motion blur on OLED, if you have Hz headroom
10x framerate = 90% less motion blur on OLED, if you have Hz headroom

So from this:
2x framegen = not enough to be worth it as a blur busting tool instead of BFI for me
Old framegen = not high quality enough to be worth it (artifacty interpolation or AI slop supertanker)
So you pay lots of money for good 4x framegen (e.g. DLSS 4.5)

Framegen is a good new blurbusting option but it works better with modern games (e.g. CP2077) than retro games (e.g. SEGA). This is because the better framegen (e.g. DLSS 4.5) with the least "AI slop artifacts" requires direct access to the GPU's Z-buffer and game motion vector data.

I recently did a playthrough of CP2077 using DLSS 4.5 framegen (DLSS spatial upscale turned off + DLSS framegen only operation as a blur busting method). I was able to play RTX OFF graphics at over 300fps, at nearly CRT motion clarity, in Cyberpunk 2077.

OLEDs are the best way to use framegen-based method of blur busting, since DLSS 4.5 can unofficially do 6x framegen with RTX 5080 and 5090.

I tested:

1. DLSS 4.5 spatial - upscaling only (Transformer Model)
2. DLSS 4.5 temporal - framegen only (No spatial upscaling) <-- My new CP2077 preference
3. Both

There are artifacts with all 3 approaches, but there's less artifacts with approach 1 or 2, than with approach 3. If you're using a low-pixel-density display such as a 45" 240Hz OLED ultrawide at 1440p, then item 2 often works better with OLED blurbusting. If you're using 360Hz or up, you'll be tempted to attempt 6:1 DLSS 4.5 framegen to see how it blurbusts a 360Hz+ OLED.

In CP2077 specifically, I often see artifacts with all approaches, but artifacts of approach 3 can sometimes be more distracting than approach 1 or approach 2 alone. Surprisingly, approach 1 and approach 2 was almost equal in "distracting-factor" when settings were carefully tuned. The distractions are mercifully sufficiently rare and non-annoying enough, that the blur busting factor upgrade exceeded BFI for me personally, at least for the specific game (Cyberpunk 2077 + Liberty DLC + new playthrough) since I kept the full color and brightness.

I did have to make do with a minor amount of motion blur -- but less motion blur than a Pioneer Kuro Plasma TV. Not bad for flickerless-based blur busting methods, and light years away from garbage yesteryear interpolation.

For 90% of content in Cyberpunk 2077, Item 2 looked almost as good as running framerates organically in CP2077, and I got the delicious CRT-quality colors with "better than plasma" motion clarity in CP2077 -- without needing the flicker of impulse-driving methods. You will occasionally notice motion artifacts of framegen, but instead of noticing it 90% of the time in ancient interpolation approaches, I only notice about 10% of the time or less (nonobjectionably)

Brute framerate-based motion blur reduction means 5x framerate = 80% less motion blur on OLED. Framegen isn't grandpa's artifacty laggy Sony Motionflow anymore, and doesn't look as bad as AI slop if you're using NVIDIA's latest ($$$$ argh argh) = DLSS 4.5. I don't like the artifacts of Lossless Scaling, but it's another brute framerate-based blurbusting option too.

Be noted latency is problematic with framegen if you can't keep base framerates above 60fps (e.g. 60->240 or 60->360). If you're stuck with a laptop-based GPU, you maybe tolerate as low as 40-45fps base framerate if you have to "make do" with a solo game like CP2077, but it's worthless for esports at this time until lagless approaches arrive.

Colors are delightfully saturated on OLED, but OLED have poor "built in hardware BFI", so brute framerate-based blur busting is the only way to make OLED outperform plasmas on some render-heavy games like CP2077 that rarely hits 200-500fps without the help of good framegen.

Whether framegen becomes weaksauce AI slop, or useless laghell, or beautiful blur busting:
- Depends on the game (e.g. CP2077 vs esports)
- Depends on display (low-Hz LCD versus high-Hz OLED). LCD GtG means blur busting upgrades to framerates is a bit weaker ROI.
- Framegen algorithm quality (rudimentary blackbox-in-middle vs highend gpu/driver native with direct access to zbuffer and motionvector data)

Now that said, playing CP2077 on the Pulsar is delightful but framerates fall low enough often that you really need to try to keep it in the triple digits to make Pulsar work well during CP2077.

Right blur busting tool for the right job!