Blur Busters Forums

Which one is better in terms of performance?

DeaxSeax wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2024, 20:28

Which one is better in terms of performance?

It doesn't affect performance.

DeaxSeax wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2024, 20:28

Which one is better in terms of performance?

I'm not an expert at all, so take my words with a grain of salt but:
ULMB often worked poorly so I assume you want to consider ULMB 2 and/or the new Pulsar tech (basically a renamed ULMB 2), in which case, for what I read, 240hz (on a decent panel) +ULMB 2/Pulsar should be vastly superior to a "plain" 360hz monitor (without BFI/ULMB/etc.). If ULMB 2/Pulsar works like BFI, then I believe that on 240hz panel you should get a 75% blur reduction and therefore perform roughly like a theoretical 750hz panel...but I could be completely wrong, If you want to get accurate numbers you better ask an expert member of the forum or the Chief

O-T-T wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2024, 14:21

I'm not an expert at all, so take my words with a grain of salt but:
ULMB often worked poorly so I assume you want to consider ULMB 2 and/or the new Pulsar tech (basically a renamed ULMB 2), in which case, for what I read, 240hz (on a decent panel) +ULMB 2/Pulsar should be vastly superior to a "plain" 360hz monitor (without BFI/ULMB/etc.).

That is correct. But it doesn't affect performance. These things have no impact on frame rates.

RealNC wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2024, 14:29

O-T-T wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2024, 14:21

I'm not an expert at all, so take my words with a grain of salt but:
ULMB often worked poorly so I assume you want to consider ULMB 2 and/or the new Pulsar tech (basically a renamed ULMB 2), in which case, for what I read, 240hz (on a decent panel) +ULMB 2/Pulsar should be vastly superior to a "plain" 360hz monitor (without BFI/ULMB/etc.).

That is correct. But it doesn't affect performance. These things have no impact on frame rates.

I know But I think what he was asking was quite understandable... on the other hand on this forum we talk almost exclusively about motion clarity and blur reduction, so I interpreted his word "performance" in this sense.

As the others noted the topic question is ambiguous.

I own an ULMB1 monitor myself (PG279Q, IPS) (waiting for new ASUS PULSAR display this year so badly…). The backlight pulse (ON) time is 2ms at 120Hz and 100% pulse width setting. This equals a pixel persistence of 2ms. A 360Hz monitor has a frame time roughly of 2.8ms. And on a sample and hold display this equals 3ms of persistence. So in terms of motion blur the ULMB1 should be better if looking on the numbers only.
BUT:
I am playing mainly with ULMB enabled (Warthunder) because without, the motion blur is not acceptable for me. I am very sensitive to motion blur unfortunately.
But ULMB1 has some disadvantages which lower the overall “performance”:
*stuttering even when Vsync on and fps are fixed to 120Hz (most annoying for me because reason unknown).
*multiple strobe images in the top and bottom region of the monitor (this is acceptable in my game because in motion I look at the central part of monitor only).
*much darker because backlight is in average much lower intensity. (acceptable by reducing ambient light)
*colors are worse (acceptable when gaming)

If my RTX3080 would deliver >360Hz I would prefer 360Hz FPS over ULMB1 120FPS.

I've got the AW2521H and also a sensitivity for blur from displays (as well as games's TAA) and I use 240hz ULMB at times for competitive games but frequently am fine on playing 360hz adaptive sync technology.

Works pretty good for my use cases.