Page 89 of 148
Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV
Posted: 27 Apr 2026, 12:50
by kyube
brownvim wrote: ↑27 Apr 2026, 07:31
If NVIDIA used the same scanning method for 120/240/360 Hz ULMB2 modes what would the numbers look like?
1/2, 1/4 & 1/6 the values Discorz' has mentioned.
Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV
Posted: 27 Apr 2026, 13:13
by Discorz
brownvim wrote: ↑27 Apr 2026, 07:31
If NVIDIA used the same scanning method for 120/240/360 Hz ULMB2 modes what would the numbers look like? I would be interested to see the perceveid hz at different brightness and pulse width settings if they actually fixed the ULMB2 modfes at 120hz+
If u're asking about the MPRT target, It would be mostly identical to last gen ULMB - 0.25% duty cycle per increment (per 1 setting number), which allowed much sharper primary image during eye-tracking.
This was the formula if anyone wants to calculate the exact targets. It can be used for the new 60Hz mode too. And here is the ufo
reference.
- MPRT = Frame Time × (0.25%×Pulse Width Setting) → e.g. (1/120) × (0.0025×33) = 0.7 ms
But strobing is not just about MPRT. At high refresh rates u don't want the backlight scan boost because that would bring back some of the inconsistent vertical crosstalk that we used to have. It would look closer to ULMB 1 crosstalk, which kills the point of rolling edge-lights.
GtG needs to be significantly faster and massive refresh headroom is needed for the pixels GtG to be hidden. To put it in perspective, we would need 6x faster GtG with 6x more Hz for 360Hz to behave the same or look as clean as 60Hz mode (assuming it's using max Hz QFT for the pixels, if not numbers are different).
Perhaps 120Hz still has room for improvement, with some crosstalk at the top and bottom mind you. Who knows, maybe audience finds it acceptable, but also maybe they've already gone through this and concluded it's not worth it. As Hz goes up, improvements lessen very quickly. Below is what XG2431 can do with "inferior" global-flash at 10% (PW 40) with slightly slower response times and slightly less refresh headroom. More about XG2431 in my 10-page review.
www.blurbusters.com/xg2431-discorz
Anyway... I think they should focus on improving Pulsar primarily.
edgintheledge wrote: ↑27 Apr 2026, 07:34
Idk if any of my posts were part of the theory crafting but it's nice to know I was on the right track with what we know so far. I was trying to describe this behavior on this post...
Your slow-mo footage and post about skewing helped confirm the theory I posted few days before that. Unless u posted even earlier and I missed it. If so can u link?
Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV
Posted: 27 Apr 2026, 13:38
by brownvim
Nice reference graphic, thank you!
It does look like there’s still some room to improve the 120 Hz ULMB2 mode. Let’s hope they address it.
The XG2431 still looks really good at 120 Hz and below — that’s about the most crosstalk I could tolerate personally.
Discorz wrote: ↑27 Apr 2026, 13:13
Anyway... I think they should focus on improving Pulsar primarily.
Yeah, that would be great. In what areas would you most like to see them improve the Pulsar? Would you want them to allow lower brightness for even better clarity, or focus on something else?
If they ever gave us proper tools to tune it ourselves, I reckon we could get it into a really good state haha.
Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV
Posted: 27 Apr 2026, 14:40
by BLooDS_inc
I think they need to properly set gsync pulsar for work in fullscreen borderless mode, in PUBG, pulsar now working only in fullscreen, even when u set fullscreen and windowed mode in nvcp panel for PUBG exclusively, when u set fullscreen borderless in-game, pulsar stop working
Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV
Posted: 27 Apr 2026, 14:59
by brownvim
BLooDS_inc wrote: ↑27 Apr 2026, 14:40
I think they need to properly set gsync pulsar for work in fullscreen borderless mode, in PUBG, pulsar now working only in fullscreen, even when u set fullscreen and windowed mode in nvcp panel for PUBG exclusively, when u set fullscreen borderless in-game, pulsar stop working
I had to roll back the Nvidia drivers, the latest ones break borderless for me.
Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV
Posted: 27 Apr 2026, 16:04
by liquidshadowfox
Discorz wrote: ↑27 Apr 2026, 13:13
brownvim wrote: ↑27 Apr 2026, 07:31
If NVIDIA used the same scanning method for 120/240/360 Hz ULMB2 modes what would the numbers look like? I would be interested to see the perceveid hz at different brightness and pulse width settings if they actually fixed the ULMB2 modfes at 120hz+
If u're asking about the MPRT target, It would be mostly identical to last gen ULMB - 0.25% duty cycle per increment (per 1 setting number), which allowed much sharper primary image during eye-tracking.
This was the formula if anyone wants to calculate the exact targets. It can be used for the new 60Hz mode too. And here is the ufo
reference.
- MPRT = Frame Time × (0.25%×Pulse Width Setting) → e.g. (1/120) × (0.0025×33) = 0.7 ms
But strobing is not just about MPRT. At high refresh rates u don't want the backlight scan boost because that would bring back some of the inconsistent vertical crosstalk that we used to have. It would look closer to ULMB 1 crosstalk, which kills the point of rolling edge-lights.
GtG needs to be significantly faster and massive refresh headroom is needed for the pixels GtG to be hidden. To put it in perspective, we would need 6x faster GtG with 6x more Hz for 360Hz to behave the same or look as clean as 60Hz mode (assuming it's using max Hz QFT for the pixels, if not numbers are different).
Perhaps 120Hz still has room for improvement, with some crosstalk at the top and bottom mind you. Who knows, maybe audience finds it acceptable, but also maybe they've already gone through this and concluded it's not worth it. As Hz goes up, improvements lessen very quickly. Below is what XG2431 can do with "inferior" global-flash at 10% (PW 40) with slightly slower response times and slightly less refresh headroom. More about XG2431 in my 10-page review.
www.blurbusters.com/xg2431-discorz
Anyway... I think they should focus on improving Pulsar primarily.
edgintheledge wrote: ↑27 Apr 2026, 07:34
Idk if any of my posts were part of the theory crafting but it's nice to know I was on the right track with what we know so far. I was trying to describe this behavior on this post...
Your slow-mo footage and post about skewing helped confirm the theory I posted few days before that. Unless u posted even earlier and I missed it. If so can u link?
I think what people aren't very happy about is the fact that rolling scan pulse doesn't actually make ULMB 2 at 120, 144, 240 and 360 hz look as sharp as global pulse on the pg27aqn which uses the last gen panel. If this new panel they are using is actually a direct successor with better g2g than the previous one, than implementing ULMB 2 global pulse SHOULD be an option for this monitor given that it also supports dynamic overdrive and variable independent overdrive. Even if there's crosstalk, there was already very minimal crosstalk on the pg27aqn where almost 1/2 the entire screen was clear so if this panel is any better, I'd assume the crosstalk would be even less and would be more sharp given it's not using red phosphor backlight. I know the 240 hz on the pg27aqn had even LESS crosstalk than 360 hz mode so I'd argue they should implement global strobe ULMB 2 at LEAST for 120 hz and 240 hz mode given how good it was on the pg27aqn (I could take another look at this tonight to compare but I remember it felt like there was literally no crosstalk at 240 hz).
Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV
Posted: 28 Apr 2026, 04:31
by brownvim
BLooDS_inc wrote: ↑20 Apr 2026, 06:56
How about a pulse width setting on the MSI version of pulsar monitor? Now it's just unusable cause u can't change the pulse width of 60hz ulmb mode and standard mode cause massive flickering, why only MSI 272qrf x36 is still have the worst firmware version between 4 monitors?
The 1.1.6 firmware update is currently available for AOC AGON PRO AG276QSG2 and MSI MPG 272QRF X36 models.
https://gsync-update.nvidia.com/
1.1.6:
Improved G-SYNC Pulsar operation for 100 – 180 FPS range.
Fixed monitor white-point value in EDID to D65 white-point value.
Fixed input auto-switch issue.
Fixed cable detection issue affecting input switching when using a DP80 cable.
Fixed occasional frame skip issue when second input is active.
https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers ... 1.4-update
See if a pulse width setting got added? Doesn't seem like it from the above list.
Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV
Posted: 28 Apr 2026, 05:51
by kyube
Nvidia wrote:
1.1.4: This firmware update includes G-SYNC Pulsar optimizations, eliminates sharp double images when operating under 90 FPS, fixes the in-monitor FPS indicator when below 90 FPS, and adds a fixed 60Hz strobing mode for games locked to 60 Hz.
1.1.6: This firmware update improves G-SYNC Pulsar operation for 100 - 180 FPS range.
Note: The 1.1.6 firmware update is currently available for AOC AGON PRO AG276QSG2 and MSI MPG 272QRF X36 models. Support for Acer Predator XB273U F5 and ASUS ROG STRIX Pulsar XG27AQNGV monitors will be added soon.
Source:
https://gsync-update.nvidia.com/
Sadly, still no update to >120Hz ULMB2.
I hate this type of software development, where a product isn't fully featured out of the box and receives post-release firmware updates instead...
Pure greed.
Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV
Posted: 28 Apr 2026, 06:02
by brownvim
kyube wrote: ↑28 Apr 2026, 05:51
Sadly, still no update to >120Hz ULMB2.
Nvidia guy here mentioned they were investigating this and only confirmed the Pulsar ghosting fix in the next firwmare update which is 1.1.6.
Re: NVIDIA G-Sync Pulsar monitor - Asus ROG Strix XG27AQNGV
Posted: 28 Apr 2026, 06:16
by kyube
brownvim wrote: ↑28 Apr 2026, 06:02
Nvidia guy here mentioned they were investigating this and only confirmed the Pulsar ghosting fix in the next firwmare update which is 1.1.6.
viewtopic.php?p=124270#p124271
I don't have my hopes up... considering something as grand as this managed to slip past their Q&A team...
This product was being worked on for 2 years, at a minimum...
