Blur Busters Forums

my FOURTH attempt to get a decent quality MSI mag251rx.

*sigh*
wish me luck.

I would never buy another 240hz ips monitor even if it takes me 20 returns. All other 240hz ips monitors are not even remotely close to being as good as the MSI.

RLCScontender wrote: ↑

07 May 2020, 21:42

my FOURTH attempt to get a decent quality MSI mag251rx.

The panel lottery is a big problem for people picky with specific aspects such as backlight bleed / IPS glow / etc effects. Especially for dark games in dark rooms, especially if you're a fan of space games.
___________

So, partial solution for BLB / IPS glow: just go FALD

I find the 1000nit GSYNC HDR FALD monitors to be a dream for some purposes. They may have more motion blur but the blacks are just bliss, with dramatically bright highlights (e.g. flames, neon lamps, sun reflections, etc) if you can tolerate a bit of bloom effects of a low-resolution FALD (Full Array Local Dimming).

I hope cheap MicroLED FALD arrives for IPS and TN panels (2000-8000 LED grids ideally to eliminate blooming), to eliminate edgelights. I really, really, really, really want to see strobed scanning-FALD that has low crosstalk, but our website used to be www.scanningbacklight.com in year 2012 before we renamed to Blur Busters, and the old Scanning Backlight FAQ published in year 2012 was www.blurbusters.com/faq/scanningbacklight ... there were lots of problems with early scanning backlights including internal backlight diffusion but now thousand-LED-count MicroLED backlights are about to arrive, and will give deeper blacks that can hide most IPS-glow / BLB issues, reducing a panel lottery issues. The problem is FALD backlights only exist in 4-figure priced gaming monitors. But when FALD arrives in 500-dollar-league high-Hz gaming monitors, it will change the ballgame of how OLED-dark the blacks can be.

MicroLED FALD will be cheaper than small-size OLED for a long time to come, and I think MicroLED FALD (at 2000 to 20,000 LED counts) will be cheaper than direct-view MicroLED (6 million subpixel, in 3 primary colors), and even a 20,000 LED machine-manufactured FALD sheet is massively cheaper than a 6-million-pixel OLED panel at the monitor sizes. Today, I can buy a 300-LED ribbon for only $10 off Alibaba (it's manufactured by a machine), and once machine manufacturing occurs with a 2000-LED FALD sheets, it may make possible the $500 FALD LCD monitor long before the $500 OLED monitor or $500 MicroLED monitor.

There are many, many horses in the refresh rate race and what is seen at DisplayWeek / CES / COMPUTEX / etc, I'm currently betting on the LCD horse to hit the 1000Hz goal before OLED/MicroLED. Not what I want, but I see what I see... Though not betting the mortgage, because it's calling approximately 3-to-2 odds that LCD wins the "retail commercialized" 1000Hz horse race by 2030.

Joel D wrote: ↑

07 May 2020, 14:05

RLCS sees IPS will now eventually take over. (cause I think it will). He might be calling it out a little early, but sees the writing on the wall. So there is no reason for TN very very soon. (unless dollar is your main concern). But at this exact junction timing, there is still a few things TN holds.

I think IPS has a great deal of advantages that is converging on TN, but 240Hz is not the final frontier.

ASUS now has a road map to building a 1000Hz monitor within 10 years, thanks to a lot of Blur Busters' advocacy, including Blur Busters Law: The Amazing Journey To Future 1000 Hz Monitors. Imagine merging ULMB and G-SYNC, having zero lag, and without strobing. Blurless, strobeless, lagless.

I do not think IPS will reach 1000Hz before TN will, and TN will still be on the table as a viable technology for about one more decade in niche purposes.

It is true I prefer OLED and MicroLED to get the 1000Hz baton but there's some OLED technological progress bottlenecks that allows TN to reach 1000Hz before OLED will. The speed of GtG isn't identical to the briefness of GtG opportunities (see "GtG as soccer balls" metaphor -- it's a difficult contradicting effect where GtG slows down at higher Hz). If you click on that link, you will realize amount of time refreshing a pixel is a separate issue than the GtG pixel response speed of the pixel. Fast GtG is not the sole determinator of a panel's capability to do kilohertz leagues. Just like you had 33ms 60Hz LCDs in the old days (slow GtG overlapping multiple refresh cycles) and also 1ms 60Hz LCDs (fast GtG tiny fraction of a refresh cycle), GtG does not determine the pace of refresh cycles, and GtG can actually slow down at higher Hz because of technological limitations -- that's why things often had more motion blur at 165Hz than 144Hz on some overclocked 165Hz displays, and why 224Hz has slightly clearer motion than at 240Hz on some of the IPS panels, etc -- since you are beginning to push GtG limitations at the max Hz.

For this reason, I think TN will still stay a viable horse in the refresh rate race until ~2025-2030, unless OLED panel manufacturers suddenly realize retina refresh rates are worthwhile, see Special OLED scan patterns, including a 960Hz multiplex scanout.

forii wrote: ↑

05 May 2020, 05:05

RLCScontender wrote: ↑

05 May 2020, 04:41

Being forced to use 60 OD at optimal refresh isn't really pushing what the manufacturer intend the monitor to do. So yup, i too would return that monitor if 80 OD showed any form of ghosting(it's not suppoesd to show ghosting at 2% error rate)

PS. i stand corrected. No need to make a video about it.

if you want to review monitors, i suggest you get yourself an oscilloscope.

i'm thinking about getting the omen x25f. Is that would you recommend that is the top eschelon of TNs?

It was only subjective opinion which everyone can see on own eyes. That is why I added a note that for more info ppl can check ur posts.

Omen x25f is very similar to acer nitro XF252QX in motion blur. Omen slighty better but it's not game changer lol

On the left Acer on the right Omen:

phpBB [video]

x25f has better black color uniformity but has bad contrast. It doesnt have anti motion blur reduction. You can't even save profiles in OSD - which is really bad for me.
If I had to choose I would choose XF252QX, esspecialy its quite cheap and have everything you need, except horible black color uniformity, but might be a little fixed with shadow/black boost. And remember its quite hard to get used to TN due to bad colors, but motion clarity and blur is perfect on the Omen or Acer.
Overall its one of the top budget 240hz TN (gaming only) monitor, personally I would not pay anything more because the difference is not worth.

Rtings measured them. They are both tied at 2.1ms g2g average. Rtings also measured the ALienware 240hz ,which is 3ms g2g just like the MSI MAG251rx. 0.9 g2g advantage which isn't noticeable at 240hz anyway since 240hz is an oxymoron to very low g2g averages(that high of a refresh rate already does the job of what a good g2g average is supposed to do, that is enhance motion clarity and reduce input lag.

masneb wrote: ↑

06 May 2020, 19:23

Then you take this self-serving bias and go and post it everywhere, attacking anyone with a different take from you because your eyes apparently are the word and law of the world. You could start a cult with this stuff.

I think it’s time for you to start betting at bookmakers.

Joel D wrote: ↑

07 May 2020, 14:05

#1- Ok, so its one of his threads (and the way he talks in it) that brought me to BlurBusters in the first place. From a google search. So he is the sole reason I found BlurBusters in the first place and the sole reason I came here and joined. No joke.

If this is the sole reason. Let's try to imagine how it was.

You fell asleep and fell face down on the keyboard. A random combination of characters was printed in Google: "rlcscontender blurbusters".
Google's artificial intelligence generated the site, the chief generated it made him the person who occupies a niche associated with motion blur.Generated forum users topics.

If it is true. Now artificial intelligence is writing this message, and I ask you to send all claims to support Google.

But if there could be several reasons. For example, you were looking for a monitor. The existence of the forum. Mom gave birth to you.

The statement is controversial.

Joel D wrote: ↑

07 May 2020, 14:05

My 2 cents - I will say no more on the subject. But my only point was that RLCS isn't bad in my eyes for the WAY he talks and the INFO and REASONINGS he provides. Now for some reason claiming this original poster didn't even own or buy the panel ? lol That I don't know about. That was weird and not right, I agree.

You're not right. This guy has a vision of 10,000 out of 10,000. His findings are most often accurate. He is honest honest honest honest. Since it takes care of the consumer and has evidence. And for a long time already proved everything.


My neighbor in the suburban area. He shot from a double-barreled shotgun into a . At the police station, he said he was fighting off enemy aircraft. I think he was extremely honest.

Assuming that the VG259QM has the same panel as the MAG251RX (24.5" AUO panel), here I'm listing why I think the VG259QM may be better than the MAG251RX:
- 6 overdrives mode compared to 3 from the MSI (Don't forget that the MAG251RX has some overshoot on the "Faster" mode, some users are more sensible to overshoot than some others, that's why ovedrive flexibility is in my opinion a must)
- ELMB-Sync: It's not perfect, don't get me wrong, but it has one of the fastest strobe pulse (1.1ms at 280hz, assuming that the implementation is the same as the VG279QM), the possibility to cap the framerate 1-3 fps less than the max refresh rate with ELMB-Sync can further reduce the strobing penalty. OD is stuck at 80, but that's fine as long as you strobe in the 200-280hz range.
- The stand on the MAG251RX is below average.

I think that saying on other threads that you have "empirical evidence" about one product being better than many others with no proof is just your mediocre opinion.
You can't compare different sites that used different tests often with different monitors, like comparing Asus 27" 240hz with MSI 24.5" 240hz just because there are no Asus 24.5" 240hz reviews available, same thing apply with 24.5" and 27" Alienware.
Here's a tip: not every 24.5" version of the same 27" monitor uses the same goddamn panel, it's much more likely that a 27" Asus with the same specs uses the same panel as the 27" Alienware than the 27" being the same but smaller version of the 24.5".

Do you really want to compare monitors? Don't buy each monitor once and send it back, buy all of them at the same time and get yourself a 1000hz camera or a photosensor to measure the response time, use an oscilloscope to measure strobing and buy a X-Rite.

Test equally to compare equally.

Now post your 5th post about how you bought your 5th MAG251RX which is better than the previous one you had and above any other monitor you "tested"(lmao) so far.

axaro1 wrote: ↑

08 May 2020, 06:41

Assuming that the VG259QM has the same panel as the MAG251RX (24.5" AUO panel), here I'm listing why I think the VG259QM may be better than the MAG251RX:
- 6 overdrives mode compared to 3 from the MSI (Don't forget that the MAG251RX has some overshoot on the "Faster" mode, some users are more sensible to overshoot than some others, that's why ovedrive flexibility is in my opinion a must)
- ELMB-Sync: It's not perfect, don't get me wrong, but it has one of the fastest strobe pulse (1.1ms at 280hz, assuming that the implementation is the same as the VG279QM), the possibility to cap the framerate 1-3 fps less than the max refresh rate with ELMB-Sync can further reduce the strobing penalty. OD is stuck at 80, but that's fine as long as you strobe in the 200-280hz range.
- The stand on the MAG251RX is below average.

I think that saying on other threads that you have "empirical evidence" about one product being better than many others with no proof is just your mediocre opinion.
You can't compare different sites that used different tests often with different monitors, like comparing Asus 27" 240hz with MSI 24.5" 240hz just because there are no Asus 24.5" 240hz reviews available, same thing apply with 24.5" and 27" Alienware.
Here's a tip: not every 24.5" version of the same 27" monitor uses the same goddamn panel, it's much more likely that a 27" Asus with the same specs uses the same panel as the 27" Alienware than the 27" being the same but smaller version of the 24.5".

Do you really want to compare monitors? Don't buy each monitor once and send it back, buy all of them at the same time and get yourself a 1000hz camera or a photosensor to measure the response time, use an oscilloscope to measure strobing and buy a X-Rite.

Test equally to compare equally.

Now post your 5th post about how you bought your 5th MAG251RX which is better than the previous one you had and above any other monitor you "tested"(lmao) so far.

I used two oscilloscopes. The MSI MAG251rx is faster from 240hz and below(3ms g2g>>>>3.8 ms g2g). That extra 8% overshoot error rate is worth the 0.8 g2g advantage. However, from 241hz and above, the asus is untouchable

Also the 280hz asus is birtuly useless at low refresh.
If u use a console at 60hz fixed refresh, the inputag is 40ms on a 5.5s g2g on "20" OD. Anytjing higher than 20 OD, the overshpot error rate goes to 20%. This may not seem a lot but at 60hz? Its very obvious.

The MSI on "faster" has 6-8% overshoot at 60hz on 3% average error rate. Which means 3ms g2g and 4-5ms input lag. That is insanely fast and it definitely will be my go to monitor when i buy the ps5 and xbox series x. Halo infinite at 3ms g2g? Sign me up.

Same panel but the msi has way better overdrive tuning. Wayyy better colors and color uniformity and is capable pf 10 hit color depth which means better gradiens and anti banding capabilities. This prolly explains why the msi doesn't look like cat piss on a white background unlike the asus.

My honest opinion is that the newer one you got looks better. The one at the top is far less severe. If its bothering you more than the brighter one at the bottom, then are you sure you have the monitor set at the right height and angle so that your eyes are dead center of the screen? Maybe your monitor is too low to your eyes and/or the angle isn't precise enough to have your eyes dead center not only height wise but calculated angle wise too, causing your subconscious vision to gravitate towards the top more ?

Also, don't be fooled by the illusion, as the newer one looks like the dark areas are darker, making the clouding appear brighter, when its really not. IDK, I like the new one, it looks like it is achieving darker blacks. But I'm judging by a pic online, so, its totally hard.

*sidenote* = Ouch, BUT both them black screens look ridiculous to be considered black screens imo. Dang. So this is what having "fast" gets you ? lol Well for video games its barely acceptable I guess (still bummed). No way in hell would I watch movies on that though. Wow... I'm actually slightly upset here. And this monitor is known for the best blacks out of 240hz 1ms monitors right ? This is the sacrifice we have to make to get fast monitors ?

LOL, To be blunt, that looks like blue sky with clouds to me. OLED black screen test looks like the tv is literally off. Dead pitch black everywhere, totally uniform. (I'd take a pic, but thats not what this thread or even forum is about)

Chief Blur Buster wrote: ↑

07 May 2020, 21:45

For this reason, I think TN will still stay a viable horse in the refresh rate race until ~2025-2030, unless OLED panel manufacturers suddenly realize retina refresh rates are worthwhile

Wow ! ok. I can see that.

Well I do think that OLED/Retina thing will happen and just wipe everyone out the water. Why wouldn't they ?

Joel D wrote: ↑

08 May 2020, 15:09

My honest opinion is that the newer one you got looks better. The one at the top is far less severe. If its bothering you more than the brighter one at the bottom, then are you sure you have the monitor set at the right height and angle so that your eyes are dead center of the screen? Maybe your monitor is too low to your eyes and/or the angle isn't precise enough to have your eyes dead center not only height wise but calculated angle wise too, causing your subconscious vision to gravitate towards the top more ?

Also, don't be fooled by the illusion, as the newer one looks like the dark areas are darker, making the clouding appear brighter, when its really not. IDK, I like the new one, it looks like it is achieving darker blacks. But I'm judging by a pic online, so, its totally hard.

*sidenote* = Ouch, BUT both them black screens look ridiculous to be considered black screens imo. Dang. So this is what having "fast" gets you ? lol Well for video games its barely acceptable I guess (still bummed). No way in hell would I watch movies on that though. Wow... I'm actually slightly upset here. And this monitor is known for the best blacks out of 240hz 1ms monitors right ? This is the sacrifice we have to make to get fast monitors ?

LOL, To be blunt, that looks like blue sky with clouds to me. OLED black screen test looks like the tv is literally off. Dead pitch black everywhere, totally uniform. (I'd take a pic, but thats not what this thread or even forum is about)

The camera amplify the uniformity so what you're seeing isnt what one can see through the naked eye unless its the backlight bleed. Which is extremely distracting if its on the top bezel. If it was more on the corners, i wouldve kept it. Any BLB near the middle especially on the top bezel is a big no no.

My replacement is coming tomorrow fyi

1200:1 contrast is the best among all of IPS. U dont wanna watch a movie in it? Then get a VA and enjoy your pixel smearing. Ive watched movies on my msi before and i have zero issues with it.

Nil on oled. If 55-65" is for u fine. Anything larger than 27" is way too big for gaming and general computer use.