NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV

[g1nk0123]

Image quality is significantly better than Zowie’s TN panels (as expected).
But: Viewing angles and color reproduction - especially black levels- are on an entirely different level with an OLED. No contest here.

Do you mean that the black levels and color etc. are "on par" with OLEDs? Unlike TNs?

No, what I mean is that while colors are way better than on a TN panel, OLEDs are on a whole other league of their own (as expected basically)

[tsarri]

But what about the lower fps performance - mainly the 60-100 fps region? A lot of reviewers mention how a Pulsar monitor can offset the cost of upgrading a GPU, for example, but then show high refresh rate gameplay examples. There's a contradiction here - Pulsar is advertised as being a combo of Gsync and ULMB - i.e., good for fluctuating FPS AND motion clarity, but then there's the caveat of flicker at <90Hz ?? So which is it? I understand that people are waiting for the new firmware to drop, but I heard that even the min of 75Hz that's supported now results in flicker. Can anyone with hands-on experience confirm?

I am mainly considering Pulsar for both ~100 FPS singleplayer titles, but as well for the occasional high refresh rate multiplayer. I guess what I'm asking is: "Is Pulsar worth it for someone who plays at ~90fps instead of 360 more often than not?

Wait for the firmware update to see how it improves motion performance under 100 fps. For now I don't personally think its worth spending $600-$700 for an ips monitor with pulsar performing the way it does at that refresh rate range.

[MPRT|GTFO]

• All graphics cards since Maxwell lack a RAMDAC to natively support CRTs, limiting their total bandwidth to some extent & introducing additional processing latency into the chain

I do use a 980Ti, because it fits my need well, but I'm under the impression that most VGA adapters won't have these issues for Dankerino's use case. At least for low resolutions (as in this case) the bandwidth requirement is pretty low. And don't the simpler adapter designs simply convert to analogue on the fly, without a latency-adding whole-frame buffer that would add cost? AFAIK more common issues with some generic adapters are support for custom resolutions and refresh rates, and high resolution support/quality, but there are good models.

• Having the physical space & table rigidity for them

Space can be an issue for some, table rigidity - not really, unless it's an airplane seat table or something

• Finding a (trinitron) tube that's of decent quality (sharpness, physical quality etc.)

For 1280x960 it shouldn't be hard to find a model that's sharp enough - I think most 19" and up that aren't too old can do that. Main issues to look out for are phosphors that are too worn out leading to poor brightness that can't be compensated for, or generally too many hours of use, which can be checked on many models in the standard OSD menu or service menu.

• Extreme radiated EMI can be a dealbreaker for chasing best possible signal integrity (not to mention a large health concern)

You mean a CRT interfering with other electronics' signals? I don't think that's a more common issue than with other generic electronics. Getting a signal to a CRT to do the most out of high resolutions can be tricky, but 1280x960 is an easy low target for CRTs, VGA cables and adapters.
As for health concerns: it's manageable. Prefer later models with protections and thick front glass, turn it off when not playing. It won't be a high dose by itself, but consider your total exposure to ionizing radiation if you work as an airman, X-ray operator or something like that. Do your own due diligence.

• Most “Esports” games don't allow 4:3 resolutions anymore

You can stretch, letterbox, etc. any resolution on a CRT if needed. But wow, no 4:3 resolutions on a PC Esports FPS? Such an engineering decision would make me question everything about such a game and whether it's even worth playing over alternatives.

• Inability to set them up ergonomically in eye-level due to their monstrous weight

Again, not something you can't work around if needed.

Models such as the XG2431, XL2566K, DyAc2 panels (e.g.: 46X+, 66X+, 86X, 86X+), 360Hz IPS GSYNC models (e..g: PG259QN) and even the Pulsar panels (using the ULMB2 fixed refresh rate mode) all satisfy the “backlight strobing in esports games” use-case far better than CRTs.
For a slightly higher PPI option, AOC Q25G4SR (and enduring KSF fringing) or the upcoming P245MS Pro+ (24.5" QHD 380Hz) are more desirable
CRTs for high FPS esports gaming are, by all essence, obsolete.
Even for the <100Hz segment, the XG2431 or older DyAc1 models are much better options.

They're probably good for Dankerino's use case, especially considering that the lower resolution already reduces the impact of motion blur.
However, your general claim about CRTs for high FPS esports is unfortunately not confirmed by performance figures, for at least some use cases. When motion blur is important for e.g. tracking things top to bottom of the screen in about 1/3 of a second, and vertical resolution is also important, a good CRT setup can do well over 1080 pixels vertical resolution very well (less well in the corners of the screen, but they are less important). Doing the math, it turns out I need less than 0.3ms MPRT. And I am looking to upgrade my resolution and screen size, hence I am considering 1440p and higher and 26.5" and higher, like these Pulsar models. I also don't want to increase the average pixel latency, hence looking at LCDs above 240Hz. Hence I haven't been convinced that any existing model can really meet that need yet, unfortunately.

These Pulsar models suggest that the goal is entirely achievable, by reducing the ULMB 2 pulse width to about 1/4 of where it is now, the brightness should still be close to or higher than that of a CRT. Close attempt. Alas, no upgrade path for now.