NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV

[Chief Blur Buster]

TIP for Pulsar users: For excellent mouselook blur busting in your Pulsar/CRT/BFI/framegen in CP 2077, raise your mouse DPI to at least 3200dpi and use extremely low mouse in-game sensitivity and extremely low Control Panel mouse arrow sensitivity.

Mouselook jitter is especially visible on a strobed low-motion-blur display.

This is an underrated tip. Most esports often use 800dpi, especially since some old engines behaved better at 800dpi, and many used it as a handshake filter of sorts. But many are migrating away from that. And 800dpi does not take full take advantage of Pulsar blur busting during mouselook due to jitters adding back blurfog. 100 jitters/second at 300fps = extra blur fog. Fix your mouse jitters!

[BLooDS_inc]

TIP for Pulsar users: For excellent mouselook blur busting in your Pulsar/CRT/BFI/framegen in CP 2077, raise your mouse DPI to at least 3200dpi and use extremely low mouse in-game sensitivity and extremely low Control Panel mouse arrow sensitivity.

Mouselook jitter is especially visible on a strobed low-motion-blur display.

This is an underrated tip. Most esports often use 800dpi, especially since some old engines behaved better at 800dpi, and many used it as a handshake filter of sorts. But many are migrating away from that. And 800dpi does not take full take advantage of Pulsar blur busting during mouselook due to jitters adding back blurfog. 100 jitters/second at 300fps = extra blur fog. Fix your mouse jitters!

For the max best use the polling rate mouse 8k, im trying the 125 hz specially to compare and it's horrible asf, so higher polling rate give you more precise mouseover looks

[bobbie424242]

Framegen (NVIDIA's specifically) is fantastic technology to propel 2 digits framerates to 3 digits, especially when being CPU limited. Which could happen either with a super demanding AAA game with the latest GPU+CPU combo, or a less demanding game running on an old CPU coupled a fairly fast GPU.
The latter is my use case, with an i7-8700K from 2018 (kind of outdated by today's standards) coupled with a RTX4080S. Framegen (+ upscaling) is saving my life for reaching > 100 fps or close to it in a number a AAA games.

[hammelgammler]

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.

Thanks for the detailed response!

The ViewSonic XG2431 seems interesting, but given it’s the same resolution as the FW900/W900 and seems to be quite a bit darker given the same motion clarity, I think I prefer the latter. But it looks like to be the best motion clarity display ever (at 5 nits).

How does the pulsar monitor compare at ULMB 60Hz to the XG2431? Generally speaking, 100 nits would be enough for me, is the motion clarity better at 100 nits? And how does the 60Hz motion clarity (at 100 nits) compare to a FW900/W900?

My real hope is the CRT beam simulator with 1000Hz OLED, but sadly we neither have 1000Hz yet, nor does the simulation work perfectly yet. But it should be only a matter of time.

[Pulsarconfusesme]

Is 8000hz for the mouse actually good? I've heard that it puts too much stress on the processor. Is 8000hz the best for Pulsar or should I use 1000/2000/4000 instead?

[hammelgammler]

I have a Sony G520 CRT. A pretty high end monitor. And the 60hz ASUS motion clarity is just better than the CRT. The LCD has less artifacts & a cleaner sharper image.

The G520 CRT can't resolve 1440p detail like how a LCD can. So the LCD already has a head start in clarity. CRT's also has phosphor trailing which is non existent on LCD. The phosphor trailing is worse than the crosstalk the ASUS has. And it's very minor crosstalk.

Sony G520 has a max of 100-115 nits. And setting ASUS LCD strobed motion mprt to match the G520 brightness levels, 100-115 nits, the clarity on the LCD is better at comparable nits.

The G520 CRT will also never reach the color accuracy of the ASUS LCD because of the limitations of the phosphor choice. The CRT gamut can't cover sRGB/Rec.709 Gamut in full. The LCD has better coverage. I have measured many different CRT phosphor types. B-22, P-22, SMPTE-C. And for old Rec.601 & new Rec.709 content the LCD is better. It has pretty much full coverage of both.

Blacks on a LCD are also better than a CRT in a lit room. Some CRT's has a grayish tint. The G520 has a greenish tint in a lit room. So LCD's have better contrast with room lights. CRT's look better in dark rooms. But most people don't game in dark caves.

16:9 ratio size is better for 4:3 & 16:9 content. The CRT 4:3 is only good for 4:3 stuff. 16:9 window is too small on it. 16:9 CRT's are hard to find. And stuff like the FW900 is expensive.

Don't have to deal with CRT misconvergence, geometry issues, moire, magnetic fields, heavy weight, big back sizes that take up lots of desk space.

Many CRT's needs servicing. Need recalibration, recapping capacitors, have many hours on them, & out of warranty. Good CRT's also gone up in used prices.

The negatives of the ASUS is that it's more flickery at 60hz. And input lag isn't as good. But input lag is not that bad. & i'll take 60hz flicker over all the other weakness of CRT's.

For 60hz content & video game consoles I think ASUS Pulsar LCD is a good CRT replacment.

Interesting, thanks for the information!

I actually bough a Sony FW900 and Sony W900, primarily for 60 FPS locked games. Phosphor trailing is indeed an issue and offsets the better contrast (in a dark room) in some form.

But good to know that the flicker is a bit worse on 60 Hz Pulsar. Input lag is also very important for me and I play in pitch black room. So from everything I read, I think I might still prefer the CRT.

Given that my goal was primarily the best motion clarity at 60 FPS, I would still like to give Pulsar a try. But I sworn myself to never buy an IPS display again, because of all the drawbacks, primarily IPS glow. I hope we can get better contrast Pulsar displays.

[RonsonPL]

Thank you.
I know the theory (which is great for other people reading this thread), just don't have access to any OLED monitors. And after purchasing this Pulsar, I will probably not have a chance to get one, so I hope the color vibrance slider in Nvidia panel will be enough to make the colors and contrast OK.
Apart from the games made deliberately to be washed out and dull, cause some devs share an opinion than any color means lack of realism and that's somehow bad, according to them



BTW. To all the people in this thread - check your local sites which gather info about promotions. If there is such a good promo in Poland (and its still available in Poland after 3 days when I type this - so not many people are interested in Pulsars) there's a high chance it will happen (or already happens) in your area too.
Paying just 63% of the initial price is very nice and rumors are circulating that monitor prices (all monitors) are about to go up, so scan for good deals often if you consider buying one this year. Might be "the" time to get it now.



@bobbie424242
Every single gamer who knows the value of motion clarity is sadly forced to use THE fastest CPU (in games) they can find. And even then you'll be looking at 50-70% of desired performance in newly released, poorly optimized games.
I strongly suggest upgrading ASAP, if prices of RAM are the problem, at least move to intel 12400f or ryzen 5600 on DDR4, but for best 0,1% lows (frame pacing consistency often correlates with this) you really want the best single threading performance available. Fortunately there's a chance new CPUs in late 2027 and 2028 will be significantly faster

[mawi]

@bobbie424242
Every single gamer who knows the value of motion clarity is sadly forced to use THE fastest CPU (in games) they can find. And even then you'll be looking at 50-70% of desired performance in newly released, poorly optimized games.
I strongly suggest upgrading ASAP, if prices of RAM are the problem, at least move to intel 12400f or ryzen 5600 on DDR4, but for best 0,1% lows (frame pacing consistency often correlates with this) you really want the best single threading performance available. Fortunately there's a chance new CPUs in late 2027 and 2028 will be significantly faster

well... if you want the clarity in combination with very low latency... for competitive shooters, then yes, you are right.
If you play gamepad games or shooters using vsync on, no reflex, you might be fine with mid-range setups as well. CS2 looks perfectly clear when vsync + gsync is used if you do not use reflex. I did not try yet but I guess that applies to other games as well. Of course with 3x the latency.

[RonsonPL]

Game genre and latency doesn't matter. What matters is target framerate vs. achievable framerate. Even on 9800X3D in many Unreal Engine games released in past 2 years, you will not even sustain 100fps. The worst offender - Borderlands 4 - even on 9800X3D+5090 in 900p res won't allow you to play at 120+fps on higher detail levels.

For us, people who value motion quality, it's not averages that matter, but the number of fps the games drops to, represented pretty accurately by 0,1 and 0,01% lows score.

As every person who looked into the problem knows, it's better when your GPU is too slow, compared to when the CPU is. The frame pacing, frame consistency - you just feel it worse when CPU struggles - Frame gen changes the landscape, but I'm talking about FG disabled now.

Of course, in the end, it will be much different depending on the game and requirements. What you play, on what monitor, what is your desired FPS etc. I'm not saying CS2 is unplayable on anything below 9800X3D, but I do think 9800X3D is too slow to be even called "minimum CPU" in many of Unreal Stutter based games, sadly. In 2026 we should all be playing at 240+fps, but instead we moved backwards chasing realism and convenience (Unreal Engine is great for game devs, but horrible for gamers)

[kyube]

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.

To be able to answer this question, we have to set a few expectations by answering the following questions:
1.) What are the options (alternatives) for 60 Hz backlight strobing?
2.) What's the fastest pixel speed you see in games you play? (most important metric)
3.) What brightness are you comfortable with?

In regards to the 1st question:
Your options are limited to models found in this list maintained by Chief:
- Viewsonic XG2431
- BenQ MBR models (XL2411P and earlier)
- Asus XG27AQNGV / Acer XB273UF5 / Asus AG276QSG2

In regards to the 2nd question, we have the following data:
A CRT is able to have clear eye-tracked motion beyond 3000px/s, as seen here
The brightness it targets is usually ~100cd/m², where any refresh rate is able to achieve aforementioned eye-tracked clarity
The pulse curve is sinusoidal, hence a bit easier on the eyes (anecdotally).
CRTs have a SVM value of ~0,72 when @ 120 Hz, which is under the "perceptible" threshold of 1
LCDs with global scan, in comparison, has SVM values around 1,19-1,5

The Viewsonic XG2431 scales as follows:



The XG2431 only gets competitive with the XG27AQNGV around PW=Ultra (still worse), which gets you ~53cd/m² of brightness
This already disqualifies the XG2431 for the 60Hz use-case, as not having at least a ≤1 ms pulse on-time is a dealbreaker to me.
Thankfully, Nvidia has opted to use much higher voltage boosting compared to the XG2431's amplitude, hence comfortably beating the Viewsonic in regards to overall brightness.

The XG27AQNGV, as per Nvidia's data, PW=25 @ 60Hz is 1,37 ms MPRT.
This implies a duty cycle of ~8,22%, leading to a effective motion clarity of ~730 Hz.
As per TFTCentral data, PW=10 targets ~50cd/m²
This would imply a ~0,5 ms pulse on time (effective motion clarity of ~2000 Hz) on the lowest possible setting (Take this data with a grain of salt, as it's based on interpolation without hands-on data.)
Take a look at DisplayNinja's UFOs at 1920px/s to get a feel for how it performs.

CRTs, in comparison, are able to achieve +4000 px/s (<0,25 ms pulse on time) of effective motion clarity (as per input lag testing data by qsxcv and Ashun from ApertureGrille)

This means that:
This would be perfectly clear on a CRT
This would be "perfectly clear" (≤1px of blur) on the XG27AQNGV @ PW=25
This should be "perfectly clear" (≤1px of blur) on the XG27AQNGV @ PW=10
Anything faster (speaking of PW=25) on the XG27AQNGV would start blurring akin to this simulation

We have no data for the BenQ models and their capabilities. My personal theory is that it sits between the Viewsonic and the Pulsar panels.

What does this mean?
For a purely 60 Hz strobing perspective, which I personally hate with all my might due to the severe sample rate reduction & thus increased eye strain (regardless of CRT or LCD Backlight strobing), the XG27AQNGV beats the XG2431 (& likely the BenQ) and is the closest thing to a CRT replacement we've had in 3 decades.
That's how bad the market is

Hope this helps!

Even on 9800X3D in many Unreal Engine games released in past 2 years, you will not even sustain 100fps.

You can simply stop supporting such development practices and vote with your wallet.