hamza_tm wrote: ↑09 Feb 2026, 12:03
Isn't the use case VRR + strobe? Are you dismissing that because of "potential eye-strain concerns" and instead judging it on everything else?
Why are these "potential eye-strain concerns" important enough to ignore VRR + strobing? Doesn't VRR + strobing have a clear use case in that it's plug+play motion clarity for any game you run (at a minimum FPS) with no faffing around to attempt to hit a given fixed FPS at all times that you play a given game, and to have to update your settings/system for any new game to attempt hit a potentially different fixed FPS?
For the gamer who wants great motion clarity with less faff, Pulsar seems to be uniquely positioned to provide that over all other options on the market, or am I missing something.
Forgot to reply to your post
Let's assume that I completely forego the increased eye-strain potential aspect entirely, solely focusing the clarity benefits you'd achieve with this approach.
The biggest question you need to answer is —
is tearing a noticable visual artifact for you to optimise for?
If the answer to the above question is “Yes.”, then Pulsar does have a
slight use-case for you.
I've noticed that you've mentioned The Finals as your game, which is one of those games where you're mostly <300FPS due to the game being unoptimized.
I believe that Pulsar (VRR+strobing) is far less "plug & play" as ULMB2 (fixed refresh rate strobing) & uncapped frame rate.
Not to mention the fact that Pulsar seemingly has variable pulse width, which would mean that you need the highest frame rate possible to achieve the best clarity possible.
The question which needs to be answered now is — is it worth strobing your nervous system / eyes for little clarity benefits? (ULMB2 is much clearer than Pulsar, provided you can do +360FPS; I'd even argue that if you're 300FPS, I'd take the 'phase shift' artifacting much more over sample & hold blur)
To me, using ULMB (1/2), DyAc (1/+/2) or PureXP is far better & more enticing for competitive games than Pulsar.
You can always undercut your typical performance in particular games.
For example:
You get 300FPS in Apex, ~240FPS in the Finals, 200FPS in some other barely optimized title.
You can either:
A) Endure the 'phase shift' artifacting (when FPS<Hz) while eliminating sample & hold blur almost entirely
B) Run 200Hz strobing (e.g.: on the XL2566K) and potentially having a slightly lower brightness / slightly lower MPRT target
Hope I've managed to make my opinions a bit clearer.
My biggest annoyance with Pulsar is the lack of HDMI 2.1 FRL6 support & adjustable PW in ULMB2 mode.
Mdruy1 wrote: ↑10 Feb 2026, 19:12
I am comparing OLED 540 hz and IPS 360 hz at same frame rates tho.
When comparing 360FPS @ 540Hz OLED or 360Hz IPS, the OLED will likely appear better to you due to the faster scan-out, assuming both are set to their sample & hold mode (BFI disabled or Pulsar / ULMB2 disabled)
Mdruy1 wrote: ↑10 Feb 2026, 19:12
IPS has the variable response times and its nowhere close to the advertised 1-3 ms even in extreme mode and ideal circumstances.
OLED also has "variable response (G2G response) times".
I'm certain that this is not the difference you're noticing between them.
Mdruy1 wrote: ↑10 Feb 2026, 19:12
With Pulsar i see the effect is less obvious at higher VRR range.
Imo the IPS cant keep up with higher refresh rates let alone less frame times. The IPS pixel transition is too noticeable for some of us, and it makes it unreliable for precise esport titles.
Judging from this comment and the comment below, I think you don't know how to set-up Pulsar properly.
You're supposed to be using GSYNC+VSYNC+Reflex.
Anything else is a failure, especially those 3-5FPS values you've mentioned.
Yes, I've mentioned that OLED will be better than any LCD at the same refresh rate
when in sample & hold mode
However, you're using strobing, which should elevate the experience to a higher level if the implementation is good (which Pulsar seemingly misses the mark)
Mdruy1 wrote: ↑10 Feb 2026, 19:12
I think OLED 540 hz is still faster and better option even if I would get only 300-400 fps.
You just haven't tried good backlight strobing
Mdruy1 wrote: ↑10 Feb 2026, 19:12
With respect to the Pulsar, it seems the monitor start to overheat, throttle or break after some gaming time to a point i need to check if Pulsar or G sync is still enabled,
even tho i get stable 357 fps.
I do think that the Pulsar models definitely exhibit increased temperature output due to the excessive voltage boosting they're doing.
Your second comment tells me that you don't know how to set-up GSYNC correctly, which renders the benefits of Pulsar useless.
See my comment above.
Mdruy1 wrote: ↑10 Feb 2026, 19:12
I just dont agree with the fact that they introduced it for esports gaming which I would not use IPS for. Idk how they gonna release the 2 year ago announced 500 hz IPS QHD and make it better since now i can already see at 300-350 fps this Pulsar monitor just feels like a 240 hz monitor and making me feel lagging despites ~10 latency and ~14 ping with frame time spikes and input lag.
I think all you're feeling is a improper set-up. Try ULMB2 & fixed refresh rate with a uncapped frame rate instead.
Mdruy1 wrote: ↑10 Feb 2026, 19:12
I am just disappointed with the Pulsar. I tried different settings and games. For me 240 hz OLED is faster and smoother than this 360 Hz IPS, regardless of motion blur (which i totally dont see at higher FPS and shooter games where this doesnt matter at all unlike speed and position and pixel accuracy
I think you should definitely consider setting up Pulsar correctly and then doing more tests.
Mdruy1 wrote: ↑10 Feb 2026, 19:15
I didnt think the Asus using variable pulse width. to me it feels 240 fps is sweet spot and
at 355 fps the Pulsar effect becomes less noticeable and i start to get overshoot or either lack of OD or something. It basically noticeable the IPS cant handle those high frame rates, i can only imagine it will be worse when the FPS goes above the monitor refresh rate unlike with OLED monitors.
There's no "sweet-spot". You want the highest frame rate possible (326FPS @ 360Hz, in this case) to get the best clarity possible.
You've set-up Pulsar (GSYNC) incorrectly.
This panel can handle it easily, from all the data we have thus far.
Ferdin wrote: ↑11 Feb 2026, 05:58
Guys, please, can you focus on the technology itself and not just the frame rate?
It's impossible to not focus on the frame rate, as the entire technology's premise is "adjustable frame rate"?
Lower frame rate means less total clarity benefits.
Ferdin wrote: ↑11 Feb 2026, 05:58
There are a lot of us who would like to use Pulsar in single player games that don't exceed 150fps, or even 100fps. What does OLED have to offer in terms of clarity in that range? Those who aim for frame rates exceeding 360fps probably don't even think about Pulsar, although there are examples of people who, after Pulsar, find using OLED a problem.
I admit that I haven't tried OLED yet, but now, for example, while playing POE2, if I want to see the background with all the details, I have to freeze the character. Does anyone here play POE2 on OLED at under 150fps and what is their experience?
If you play a frame rate limited game such as PoE2, I strongly suggest that you find a
fixed refresh rate backlight strobing display.
Look at my signature, there's a topic listing good implementations.
Nothing else will be as good.
OLED is still bound by the content's frame rate. 150FPS is simply too blurry without backlight strobing.
Ferdin wrote: ↑11 Feb 2026, 05:58
How many of us (don't have) configurations that can handle 300-400fps and more? Oblivion Remastered on a 5090 with all the additional technologies can't handle 200fps. Not even a hundred without them.
I can tell you that ~360 games / 7k (which I've single-handedly went through) are able to achieve +500FPS on DDR5-era hardware.
Ferdin wrote: ↑11 Feb 2026, 05:58
Does the Pulsar for ~600e give me what I would get only with a 5080 for more than 1500e in terms of clarity on OLED? Do I have the same effect with OLED as, for example, on a VA panel in terms of clarity at around 100fps?
I strongly suggest avoiding Pulsar and getting a XL2411P or some other monitor which is able to adjust it's pulse width in the
Blurbusters Utility
Your targeted use-case seems to be 100FPS, where Pulsar would be much blurrier than the aforementioned setup.
Ferdin wrote: ↑11 Feb 2026, 05:58
According to most of the comments here, it turns out that the most important thing is to satisfy eSports players. Maybe this is the wrong forum to discuss this technology... and what's more, claims are being made about something that hasn't been seen live...
Not at all, it's just that the last few comments have been esports-centric
The low frame rate use-case (60–200FPS) is better handled by fixed refresh rate strobing with adjustable pulse width than Pulsar.