Who you gonna call? The Blur Busters! For Everything Better Than 60Hz™
https://forums.blurbusters.com/
I play PUBG and Battlefield 6, and removing (my definition of) blur would mean that when I "look around" in the game, by moving my FOV quickly, I would more easily be able to spot details like players.
I play PUBG and Battlefield 6, and when I pan the FOV quickly, which I do all the time, I want to easily spot details and enemies, but when the entire contents of the monitor becomes blurry, MUCH more so at 120 than 300 fps, but still at 300 fps, this is made difficult.
I politely have to disagree with you, I used to play professional CS 1.6 on my legendary HP p1230 CRT with a Diamondtron NF tube, and playing anything less than 300 fps @ 160 hz was terrible. I'm pretty sure that monitor had a <0,5 MPRT.
Maybe a high-Hz OLED will feel clearer to you. I think Tim (Hardware Unboxed) played Battlefield with the Pulsar monitor in his review and he saw noticeable improvements in motion.
I hope you've set the in-game cap in PUBG to 324FPS when you've tried Pulsar (while enabling VSYNC in-game & GSYNC in NvCpl, as the game lacks Reflex)
You don't change the sample rate when you run FrRate > RefRate
Thanks for the reply, interesting and promising that SteamOS is on board implementing it.Chief Blur Buster wrote: ↑19 Feb 2026, 19:05TLDR:brownvim wrote: ↑19 Feb 2026, 18:20@Chief Blur Buster — I was mainly hoping to hear your take on this. Do you think a well-implemented GPU/driver-level ShaderBeam-style solution could have delivered similar (or better) results than the current monitor-hardware Pulsar approach, without needing all that vendor coordination?
For reliability: Pulsar outperforms by a wide margin. You need a lot of optimizing in ShaderBeam
For crosstalk: CRT currently outperforms.
For 50Hz PAL and 60Hz NTSC support: CRT currently outperforms (until firmware upgrade).
For blur: CRT already outperforms the fixed-Hz feature of Pulsar for some refresh rates. CRT can go sub-10% persistence for 60fps on 720Hz OLED today, while Pulsar pulsewidth is not adjustable.
For lag: Currently much worse. The dealkiller for esports.
Lag can be reduced later. This question is already answered halfway down at www.blurbusters.com/open-source-display
The software CRT has to be at a different location than ShaderBeam (enforced due to arbitrary stuff), but it can perform close to hardware if it's a beamraced box-in-middle implementation.
Also, motion blur is throttled by MaxHz, so I'd need 2000 Hz OLED to get 1/2000sec 0.5ms MPRT (+ 0.25ms softening for temporal blending effects) for 40-700fps range. I'd need 3:1 margin above MaxHz.
For 360Hz Pulsar to get similar results at fixed Hz at 25% persistence, you'd need 360 * 4 = 1440Hz. But I need a higher MaxHz for reliable temporal blending.
CRT doesn't have to be done at the computer level. It can be done on a GPU-chip level (if NVIDIA adds native lagless refresh cycle shader support later). It can be done in a box-in-middle level like a Retrotink 4K. It can be done in a display firmware.
- Operating Systems (e.g. Valve SteamOS, Microsoft Windows, Apple MacOS/iOS, Linux);
- GPU driver vendors (e.g. NVIDIA, AMD, Intel, Qualcomm);
- Display manufacturers (the whole industry);
- Video Processor Vendors and Video Capture Vendors (e.g. Retrotink, Elecard);
- Independent Software Vendors (e.g. ShaderBeam, RetroArch, Reshade, games, virtual display drivers)
The phosphors would've limited it to 1.0ms to 1.1ms. (910hz) persistence.. I think it's just that the games have much more detail now.
It's more the following:purplemelon1 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2026, 15:49So even with corrected vision. You may need 1800hz instead of the 900hz just to see the same. In that one to one situation. With that crt.
