Blur Busters Forums

passballtotucker wrote: ↑

01 Sep 2026, 13:42

The image retention is terrible. This can't be used as a crt replacement unless you only play 240p games. If you try to play 480i games with retrotink's crt simulation it will have image retention in less than a minute. Apparently this is common with IPS panels. Maybe they could have the next pulsar on a good VA panel.

What? It's my first IPS monitor and I never heard about it. Why would nobody talk about it? Could you post a link to source of this info?
BTW. IPS panels are not exactly 100% fast enough, but VA panels will never, ever reach the point where they're suitable for anything other than a static image. There's no VA panel fast enough and there will never be. I've been saying that for past 15 years on various forums and was told "just wait, the tech will advance". Well? It didn't. And it surely won't now when OLEDs are slowly approaching "cheap" price zones.

edgintheledge wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2026, 00:00

Bonus annoyance points on Linux, as Nvidia drivers on Wayland can only disable/ignore VRR for ULMB by using a nvidia-modeset parameter (Meaning a reboot is required every time you want to change it ). A simple OSD toggle bypasses this issue.

That's a downer. I'm planning to abandon Windows entirely to play on Linux.

hammelgammler wrote: ↑

25 Aug 2026, 05:26

Given that you used a FW900 before, how would you say does it compare to the current pulsar monitors in terms of effective motion clarity?

Apologies, but I couldn't test it. We had to pack everything back up after just a brief moment and real life will prevent me from testing it properly anytime soon, so I won't be able to provide any of promised opinions, sorry


So far: 360Hz mode in Battlefield 6 looks OK. I enabled NVidia's frame gen on RTX 5070 and I was not annoyed by blur when flying a jet (the mouse is only 1000Hz so this was a better test idea) - but that's far from demanding scenario.
UFOtest came out visibly worse than on my XL2411Z if I'd compare to Benq set to very short strobe time, but it's OK. It was 360Hz, Pulsar ON, browser's ufotest showing it synced correctly to 360 and I'm sure there were no issues.

I'd say it's well within "OK" for me. Not a razor sharp CRT-like, but I can see moving object, not a blurry soup, which is nice For people who never had one of those TN panels with superb low persistence mode or any CRTs, it's what they'll call "crystal clear". For us - just OK.


Blacks are visibly worse than on my Benq XL2411Z
The contrast and colors so far are a big disappointment, although I didn't tinker with it too much and maybe set brightness too low (I set it to what I liked in a room, day time, but with shades on windows closed)
I honestly expected more from "crappy old TN" vs. "most modern IPS".

I didn't even had time to enable ULMB
Basically I unpacked it to see if I wasn't unlucky to get a bad one with horrible backlight bleed.
And yes. Whoever designed the bay for video ports at the back, should be fired. You cannot plug anything without damaging the cables. Brilliant. :/
And despite it not being 4K 480Hz DP 2.1 monitor, the cable is too short for how I have my PC placed. If your PC doesn't stand next to your monitor, you may need to buy a separate cable. For a monitor that launched at 700-750€ for 27" 1440p IPS LCD, it's a slap in the face, but hey, at least Nvidia doesn't force us into G-sync monthly subscriptions...

...yet

If there's anything left to be said about this monitor by the time I finally can test it properly and most importantly PLAY anything on it, I'll post here, but don't hold your breath. Might be December for all I know.

edgintheledge wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2026, 00:00

If it hasn't been mentioned already, the OSD lacking a VRR toggle is annoying for me. My much cheaper VG27AQM1A has a toggle that you can use without having to open NVCP every time.

hehe... most folks (me included) want the pulsar switch on NVCP, you want VRR toggle on OSD. I agree having both on both would make sense.

edgintheledge wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2026, 00:00

If it hasn't been mentioned already, the OSD lacking a VRR toggle is annoying for me. My much cheaper VG27AQM1A has a toggle that you can use without having to open NVCP every time.

Bonus annoyance points on Linux, as Nvidia drivers on Wayland can only disable/ignore VRR for ULMB by using a nvidia-modeset parameter (Meaning a reboot is required every time you want to change it ). A simple OSD toggle bypasses this issue.

I've mentioned it at the start of my rants in here already.
It's OK, Nvidia is just a small indie dev company, they have no resources to implement the exact same feature set every single monitor on the market has

RonsonPL wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2026, 04:52

What? It's my first IPS monitor and I never heard about it. Why would nobody talk about it? Could you post a link to source of this info?
BTW. IPS panels are not exactly 100% fast enough, but VA panels will never, ever reach the point where they're suitable for anything other than a static image. There's no VA panel fast enough and there will never be. I've been saying that for past 15 years on various forums and was told "just wait, the tech will advance". Well? It didn't. And it surely won't now when OLEDs are slowly approaching "cheap" price zones.

...except that this Pulsar AUO panel (M270DAN10.6) & the PG27AQN are fast enough for 240Hz operation
The INNOCN 27G1S (QHD 240Hz VA) has shown that VA's are capable of achieving good compliance.
I do agree that, from a purely sample & hold perspective, OLED dominates >360Hz market due to it's relatively uniform 0,5 ms G2G RT's.

RonsonPL wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2026, 04:52

So far: 360Hz mode in Battlefield 6 looks OK. I enabled NVidia's frame gen on RTX 5070 and I was not annoyed by blur when flying a jet (the mouse is only 1000Hz so this was a better test idea) - but that's far from demanding scenario.
UFOtest came out visibly worse than on my XL2411Z if I'd compare to Benq set to very short strobe time, but it's OK. It was 360Hz, Pulsar ON, browser's ufotest showing it synced correctly to 360 and I'm sure there were no issues.

I'd say it's well within "OK" for me. Not a razor sharp CRT-like, but I can see moving object, not a blurry soup, which is nice For people who never had one of those TN panels with superb low persistence mode or any CRTs, it's what they'll call "crystal clear". For us - just OK.

Pulsar is tested by using games which run below the maximum refresh rate
This means that, TestUFO (which runs FPS=Hz at all times), is incapable of showcasing how Pulsar works in action.
What you should be experiencing is standard ULMB2 @ 360Hz when using the TestUFO pursuit.

To test out Pulsar (VRR+Strobe), you either use SmoothFrog or in-game testing.
Ideally, you'd run GSYNC+VSYNC+Reflex or GSYNC+VSYNC & in-game limiter set to X≤327 (where X is the frame rate limiter value you've chosen)
Why 327? Because Nvidia decided that their autocap works best with that specific value.
You can manually decide what frame rate limiter value you can get away with in your specific games by using RTSS moving (or colored) bar

What is the consensus among users that mainly play fps games at high framerates? ULMB2 vs Pulsar and if ULMB2 wins what pulse width?

Do I understand correctly this is the way:
Quake Live that is naturally 250fps capped by it self: 240 Hz mode + 240 FPS locked in Quake Live + ULMB2 PW50
Apex legends that is naturally 300 fps capped by it self: 360-Hz mode + 300 FPS locked by Apex naturally + Pulsar

?

I have a question for those who have had or currently own both a Pulsar monitor and a 500Hz+ OLED side-by-side. Is there a noticeable difference in motion clarity between the two? I mean in real-life usage, not UFO test patterns—specifically in FPS games, assuming you can push 500+ FPS.In fact, the latest 540Hz OLED (PG27AQWP-W) has usable BFI (270 nits), so 240 FPS is enough to gain 540Hz clarity. Achieving 240 FPS is even easier than hitting 360 FPS for Pulsar. I'm not interested in 60 FPS retro games; I don't even consider playing below 200 FPS.

I dont have an oled side-by-side to my pulsar but I have seen it next to a 360 Hz oled. Pulsar was slightly clearer, both ran with 328 fps fps cap on CS2, well configured via RTSS etc.
In scenes with smoke grenades etc the avg fps dropped down to 220... In this range you see a big difference.

But to be honest. The OLED looked amazing and I totally understand that oled gamers cannot "downgrade" to pulsar. I have never owned an oled gaming monitor, only TVs. So for me Pulsar is an amazing upgrade from 165 Hz IPS to 360 Hz. My friend returned his pulsar as he just could not stand the IPS "glow".

If you have a beefy machine and you can deliver 500 fps to the 540 Hz OLED, go for it. I would just recomment you to use RTSS (or equivalent) for frame capping there as well. Having good frame pacing is especially necessary for pulsar but it is also a big difference on high refresh OLED displays.

knypol wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2026, 11:47

I have a question for those who have had or currently own both a Pulsar monitor and a 500Hz+ OLED side-by-side. Is there a noticeable difference in motion clarity between the two? I mean in real-life usage, not UFO test patterns—specifically in FPS games, assuming you can push 500+ FPS.In fact, the latest 540Hz OLED (PG27AQWP-W) has usable BFI (270 nits), so 240 FPS is enough to gain 540Hz clarity. Achieving 240 FPS is even easier than hitting 360 FPS for Pulsar. I'm not interested in 60 FPS retro games; I don't even consider playing below 200 FPS.

I have both a Pulsar and a 480hz OLED monitor (dual mode 4k 240hz/1080p 480hz) - both 27". Only difference is the OLED drops to 1080p at 480hz vs. the Pulsar's native 1440p.

I genuinely find them quite closely comparable when I've got both running full beans. They are better at different things and I find myself swapping between them quite a bit.

I actually limit my games on Pulsar to a max of 240fps as I found the clarity benefit on Pulsar above 240fps wasn't hugely noticeable to me - and like @mawi said consistent frame pacing is what makes Pulsar shine.

On my OLED, I mainly play one title at 480hz (and tbh it's probably my most played games with 2k hours across the last 2 years...) and I run that at a 420fps cap. The game will hit that number when I'm in a final round (3v3) but more often sits around the 300fps mark during regular rounds (3v3v3v3 with often 12 people in a confined area at the same time).

I do think it's subjective as to what you'll prefer or notice. I find the Pulsar monitor so smooth to use, there are times when I'll genuinely find myself smiling because of how 'perfect' the image looks as I'm tracking a target across the sky. But I do find the 480hz OLED insanely 'immediate'. Everything I want is instant - but I do think the Pulsar looks 'smoother' for fps games with a longer TTK where tracking is an important part of the game.

I can't pick between them. I swap almost every day depending on what I want to do, sometimes I'll even have that 'placebo' side to it where I'll lose a tournament and be convinced it was the monitor - so swap from OLED to Pulsar (or vice versa) and turns out the problem was me the whole time...

(9/9) 1.1.10 OEM QA is complete. We are preparing the update posting. Today or tomorrow. Stay tuned

Lets GO, today or tomorrow

1.1.10 is available now for those interested

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/fo ... changelog/
Eagerly excited to see someone test out Pulsar in SmoothFrog & 240-360Hz ULMB2 on >1920 px/s