Blur Busters Forums

Posted: **22 Mar 2026, 14:14**

liquidshadowfox wrote: ↑
22 Mar 2026, 14:10
on rtings I saw someone comment this below
...
With V-Sync ON + Reflex Ultra, the system hard caps at ~320 FPS and latency increases from roughly 4 ms to ~12 ms. 1% lows worsen and frametime consistency degrades.
...

If you see someone giving you concrete information without proof, you can safely ignore it

brownvim wrote: ↑
21 Mar 2026, 04:25
At 60 Hz ULMB, dropping the pulse width below ~30 gives a very noticeable jump in clarity (exactly as TFTCentral showed).
It shows clarity difference across the whole PW range.
At 120/240/360 Hz ULMB2, lowering the pulse width slider has almost no visible effect on clarity — it mostly just dims the screen.
It really feels like the higher refresh rate modes are still locked (or limited) around the same ~25% duty cycle that normal VRR Pulsar uses, while only the 60 Hz mode got the full adjustable treatment.

That's precisely what I'm referring to.
This is why I'm disappointed with this (fixed refresh rate) backlight strobing implementation.
ULMB1/2, in general, don't allow for custom refresh rate targets (e.g.: 72Hz, 96Hz & 250Hz, 300Hz...), hence I already gave up on that benefit.
The use-case for this above is displaying 24FPS content with 3-4x frame interpolation & backlight strobing.

brownvim wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2026, 09:47
The way I understand it (and I could be wrong) is that the longer “strobe off” / dark time at 60 Hz is the main reason why the 60 Hz ULMB mode can often look less blurry — and sometimes even sharper — than the 120/240/360 Hz modes when using the same low pulse width (below ~30).
More strobe off time generally equals better perceived clarity is how I understand it, yet you're saying "That's.... not the case at all." So I'm a bit confused.

I always like to use this animation to showcase what the 'on' pulse & 'off' pulse portion are:

The “strobe on” period would be when the signal (pulse) is at it's high value (“1”), while the “strobe off” period is when the signal is at it's low value (“0”)
The blue vertical line indicates the end of the “strobe on” period.
The white numerical values would be referred to as the MPRT (slight misnomer) or the “strobe on” period
The shorter the “strobe on” period, the sharper the UFO will be in the TestUFO pursuit photograph.
This also means that, when the “strobe on” period is shorter, the “strobe off” period will be longer
That, however, doesn't exempt the higher refresh rate modes missing the same duty cycle range.
Higher refresh rate makes chasing shorter “strobe on” periods easier.

I understood your term "settlng time" as related to G2G RTs, hence why the confusion arose.

brownvim wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2026, 09:47
Are you assuming the pulse width timings are somehow different or broken at the higher refresh rates?

Yes, that's precisely why I think they've made a separate 60Hz setting as well.

brownvim wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2026, 09:47
And isn’t more strobe off time generally what reduces perceived blur? Doesn’t this behave the same way on other strobing monitors like the XG2431 or DyAc models?

Yes, in essence, as mentioned in my explanation above.
Yes to the latter question as well. ULMB2 should be fixed refresh rate backlight strobing. Seemingly rolling scan on 60Hz & on the +120Hz modes.

brownvim wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2026, 09:47
On the HDMI 2.1 side — why do you think full FRL6 bandwidth is such a big deal? The current implementation already supports everything current consoles (including the PS5 Pro) need right now — you already get 4K 120 Hz + VRR + HDR + ALLM. All modern GPUs also have far more DisplayPort outputs than HDMI anyway. So I’m struggling to see why it’s considered a major limitation. Could it also just be cost-cutting on the manufacturers’ side?

For PC users the biggest losses seem to be: no Pulsar over HDMI and no 1440p 240/360 Hz over HDMI. Or you could just use the DisplayPort cable and have it all...

Avoiding DSC aka using the scaler IC's full potential, so one can warrant shelling out 700€ for a LCD

Posted: **22 Mar 2026, 15:55**

kyube wrote: ↑
22 Mar 2026, 14:14

liquidshadowfox wrote: ↑
22 Mar 2026, 14:10
on rtings I saw someone comment this below
...
With V-Sync ON + Reflex Ultra, the system hard caps at ~320 FPS and latency increases from roughly 4 ms to ~12 ms. 1% lows worsen and frametime consistency degrades.
...
If you see someone giving you concrete information without proof, you can safely ignore it

brownvim wrote: ↑
21 Mar 2026, 04:25
At 60 Hz ULMB, dropping the pulse width below ~30 gives a very noticeable jump in clarity (exactly as TFTCentral showed).
It shows clarity difference across the whole PW range.
At 120/240/360 Hz ULMB2, lowering the pulse width slider has almost no visible effect on clarity — it mostly just dims the screen.
It really feels like the higher refresh rate modes are still locked (or limited) around the same ~25% duty cycle that normal VRR Pulsar uses, while only the 60 Hz mode got the full adjustable treatment.
That's precisely what I'm referring to.
This is why I'm disappointed with this (fixed refresh rate) backlight strobing implementation.
ULMB1/2, in general, don't allow for custom refresh rate targets (e.g.: 72Hz, 96Hz & 250Hz, 300Hz...), hence I already gave up on that benefit.
The use-case for this above is displaying 24FPS content with 3-4x frame interpolation & backlight strobing.

brownvim wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2026, 09:47
The way I understand it (and I could be wrong) is that the longer “strobe off” / dark time at 60 Hz is the main reason why the 60 Hz ULMB mode can often look less blurry — and sometimes even sharper — than the 120/240/360 Hz modes when using the same low pulse width (below ~30).
More strobe off time generally equals better perceived clarity is how I understand it, yet you're saying "That's.... not the case at all." So I'm a bit confused.
I always like to use this animation to showcase what the 'on' pulse & 'off' pulse portion are:

The “strobe on” period would be when the signal (pulse) is at it's high value (“1”), while the “strobe off” period is when the signal is at it's low value (“0”)
The blue vertical line indicates the end of the “strobe on” period.
The white numerical values would be referred to as the MPRT (slight misnomer) or the “strobe on” period
The shorter the “strobe on” period, the sharper the UFO will be in the TestUFO pursuit photograph.
This also means that, when the “strobe on” period is shorter, the “strobe off” period will be longer
That, however, doesn't exempt the higher refresh rate modes missing the same duty cycle range.
Higher refresh rate makes chasing shorter “strobe on” periods easier.

I understood your term "settlng time" as related to G2G RTs, hence why the confusion arose.

brownvim wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2026, 09:47
Are you assuming the pulse width timings are somehow different or broken at the higher refresh rates?
Yes, that's precisely why I think they've made a separate 60Hz setting as well.

brownvim wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2026, 09:47
And isn’t more strobe off time generally what reduces perceived blur? Doesn’t this behave the same way on other strobing monitors like the XG2431 or DyAc models?
Yes, in essence, as mentioned in my explanation above.
Yes to the latter question as well. ULMB2 should be fixed refresh rate backlight strobing. Seemingly rolling scan on 60Hz & on the +120Hz modes.

brownvim wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2026, 09:47
On the HDMI 2.1 side — why do you think full FRL6 bandwidth is such a big deal? The current implementation already supports everything current consoles (including the PS5 Pro) need right now — you already get 4K 120 Hz + VRR + HDR + ALLM. All modern GPUs also have far more DisplayPort outputs than HDMI anyway. So I’m struggling to see why it’s considered a major limitation. Could it also just be cost-cutting on the manufacturers’ side?

For PC users the biggest losses seem to be: no Pulsar over HDMI and no 1440p 240/360 Hz over HDMI. Or you could just use the DisplayPort cable and have it all...
Avoiding DSC aka using the scaler IC's full potential, so one can warrant shelling out 700€ for a LCD

Guy from TFTCentral is going to have a look at it sometime this week, hopefully sees the same thing and relays it to Nvidia dev team like the 120-180fps ghosting issue in the new firmware which they have acknowledged.

Not sure what will come of it but worth a try.

Posted: **22 Mar 2026, 20:20**

Hello, I have been toying with the settings, and when I set VSync 1/2 refresh rate, in conjunction with Special K latent sync 1/2 refresh rate in-game (so the FPS cap is 180); I get a very smooth frametime graph with minimal render latency - variable refresh rate is however reported as "supported + inactive" and there is a higher total latency by approx 5 ms - this however I presume is just because the system idles due to the 1/2 refresh rate. The Special K latency analysis also shows increase from approx. 0 Hz latency to approx. 2 Hz latency, no VSync vs. 1/2 refresh rate VSync; but I do not understand what does it mean.

Is this a good practice, or am I just sacrificing the VRR and GSync Pulsar capabilities, and there will be noticeable detriments in different scenarios?

Posted: **23 Mar 2026, 10:00**

I honestly hope they find something about the higher refreshes because even above 200 hz, I still think it doesn't look as clear as the lower refreshes. It's supposed to be a 4x "effective" boost to motion clarity but I'm not seeing it above 200 hz and that comment about dynamic overdrive being disabled during pulsar operation is the only thing that makes sense to me that could explain why. It does clear up motion but for some reason it just looks much better below that 200 hz threshold (obviously minus the double imaging artifacts we get on current firmware).

Posted: **23 Mar 2026, 13:32**

I got this monitor on Friday but had really bad overheating issues. It would immediately thermal throttle and shut down if I even tried to start a game with Pulsar on. Sometimes it would overheat just while having Chrome open on the screen. The only way I was able to game on it a little bit with Pulsar on was to reduce the refresh rate to 240hz and turn the brightness all the way down. Luckily I got it at Microcenter so I was able to exchange it for another unit yesterday. Haven't experienced any overheating with the new unit so far in my brief testing while gaming with Pulsar on and brightness at 350-400, so I'm really hoping the first one was just a faulty unit and not a broader problem with the model.

Posted: **23 Mar 2026, 16:34**

This exclusive fullscreen bug with rtx 40 and 30 cards makes pulsar almost unusable, don't know why its not being talked about more. The fact that you need to give up 360htz pulsar to fix it is laughable. New firmware seems like 1 step forwards 2 steps back as well. Paying $700 to beta test pulsar I see.

Posted: **23 Mar 2026, 16:48**

tsarri wrote: ↑
23 Mar 2026, 16:34
This exclusive fullscreen bug with rtx 40 and 30 cards makes pulsar almost unusable, don't know why its not being talked about more. The fact that you need to give up 360htz pulsar to fix it is laughable. New firmware seems like 1 step forwards 2 steps back as well. Paying $700 to beta test pulsar I see.

This bug is out there on many uhd 240 hz oled screens (and I think also on the non-pulsar Asus 360 Hz IPS) which use DP1.4 and DSC since years. They just dont give a damn about this.
Next firmware will probably fix the 90-180 Hz range and if that is solved, I am sure they will call it a day.

See here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcmonito ... ?context=1

Posted: **24 Mar 2026, 08:06**

Could someone verify my understanding of NVIDIA Pulsar?

If there is a significant gap between average FPS and 1% lows, the irregular frame pacing forces the Pulsar algorithm to constantly adjust. For example, if a frame delivery jumps from 5ms to 12.5ms, Pulsar must increase the backlight 'on' time (pulse width) for that specific frame to maintain consistent brightness and prevent visible flicker.

However, because motion clarity depends on short pulse widths, these frequent 1% low drops mean the backlight stays on longer more often, resulting in a loss of motion blur reduction.

Posted: **24 Mar 2026, 08:19**

shapaco wrote: ↑
24 Mar 2026, 08:06
Could someone verify my understanding of NVIDIA Pulsar?

If there is a significant gap between average FPS and 1% lows, the irregular frame pacing forces the Pulsar algorithm to constantly adjust. For example, if a frame delivery jumps from 5ms to 12.5ms, Pulsar must increase the backlight 'on' time (pulse width) for that specific frame to maintain consistent brightness and prevent visible flicker.

However, because motion clarity depends on short pulse widths, these frequent 1% low drops mean the backlight stays on longer more often, resulting in a loss of motion blur reduction.

It does a secondary compensation pulse, you can read about it in the TFT Central article: https://tftcentral.co.uk/articles/nvidi ... -reduction

"The compensation pulse mostly seems to be used during significant and rapid frame rate changes, and then disappears as the frame rate settles again. If the change in frame rates is subtle and slow, the compensation pulse isn’t needed and instead you get a gradual change in the strobe height and width"

It does affect the clarity for a short period, this has been reduced in the newer firmware. I haven't tested it though, could easily be checked with SmoothFrog.

Posted: **24 Mar 2026, 09:07**

shapaco wrote: ↑
24 Mar 2026, 08:06
However, because motion clarity depends on short pulse widths, these frequent 1% low drops mean the backlight stays on longer more often, resulting in a loss of motion blur reduction.

I am not sure I f 1% low drops really cause motion blur. But you clearly see a lot of micro stuttering which destroys this "wow" feeling pulsar can give you. I am testing this always at the same spot in CS2 where I strafe sideways while trying to read the small letters on the restaurant menue on Inferno

These letters remain clear and smooth even down to 120 Hz if 1% lows are fine.

Using Vsync + Reflex then makes them drop. On my hardware the average remains fine (about 300) but lows drop down to 100 instead of 220-260.
Then the menu letters are stuttering. I think they are still clear... its not the typical sample&hold blurriness. But still hard to read. It just doesnt look well.

Blur Busters Forums

NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV

Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV

Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV

Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV

Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV

Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV

Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV

Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV

Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV

Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV

Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV