Blur Busters Forums

For fps shooters such as valorant, counterstrike would the non oled asus be better in any way with the ulmb2 advantage? Currently have the alienware and while its dim not using hdr its not terrible, came from a 360hz tn zowie so it definitely looks nicer. But picture isnt exactly #1 priority.

.

do you like it?
I have been using it for a week or two and it's decent. I wouldn't say that it has a been an big upgrade compared to my 380hz IPS or my network jittering nowadays is holding me back from fully enjoying it.

butt wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2024, 18:19

For fps shooters such as valorant, counterstrike would the non oled asus be better in any way with the ulmb2 advantage? Currently have the alienware and while its dim not using hdr its not terrible, came from a 360hz tn zowie so it definitely looks nicer. But picture isnt exactly #1 priority.

It would be a substantial difference in motion clarity, due to ULMB 2 targetting =<1ms MPRT with little crosstalk due to the PG27AQN having great G2G RT's to help this out.
One has to keep in mind of this:



From this table, the PG27AQN would be akin to +960hz displays for eye-tracked motion (moving eyes & moving target, 2B scenario) (e.g: tracking a moving target on screen in OW2, Apex, Quake, controlling spray in CS2,...)
This is what Nvidia refers to as "effective +1000Hz refresh rate" when marketing ULMB 2.
The benefits are not that great if you are doing fixed-gaze (1A or 1B scenario) (e.g.: looking at crosshair while holding an angle in CS2/Valorant)
But frankly, I don't know of a single person who solely relies on fixed-gaze only while playing shooter games.

Personally, LCD's with a good backlight strobing implementation (ULMB1/2, Dyac1/+/2, PureXP) & impulse-based displays, in extension, (e.g.: CRTs) are still king due to having great clarity at any FPS/Hz combination one desires (when implementation is right), which allows one for great variety in hardware choices as opposed to OLED (which forces you to play FPS>=Hz for best possible motion clarity)

However, I would instead wait for the PG27AQNR, which is gonna be a refresh of the aforementioned display. It's supposed release date is Q3 2025 as of latest information.
The added HDMI 2.1 should allow you for DSC-less 1440p 360hz experience. The new Mediatek-based G-Sync Pulsar (Backlight strobing + VRR) implementation will be interesting to see as well.

kyube wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 09:19

From this table, the PG27AQN would be akin to +960hz displays for eye-tracked motion (moving eyes & moving target, 2B scenario) (e.g: tracking a moving target on screen in OW2, Apex, Quake, controlling spray in CS2,...)
This is what Nvidia refers to as "effective +1000Hz refresh rate" when marketing ULMB 2.
The benefits are not that great if you are doing fixed-gaze (1A or 1B scenario) (e.g.: looking at crosshair while holding an angle in CS2/Valorant)
But frankly, I don't know of a single person who solely relies on fixed-gaze only while playing shooter games.

Personally, LCD's with a good backlight strobing implementation (ULMB1/2, Dyac1/+/2, PureXP) & impulse-based displays, in extension, (e.g.: CRTs) are still king due to having great clarity at any FPS/Hz combination one desires (when implementation is right), which allows one for great variety in hardware choices as opposed to OLED (which forces you to play FPS>=Hz for best possible motion clarity)

I also don't know a single person who solely relies on eye-tracking.

It's difficult to tell what are the exact ratios of eye/content speed vs eye/content direction, as these likely vary between individuals and different types of content. It's currently woefully under-researched territory as Chief says. The data would be very useful in determining the benefits of higher refresh rates and flicker.

There are a bunch of Tobii Eye Tracker videos online tho. I encourage everyone to try and analyse just 10 seconds of footage. Hard for head to wrap around it. But I'd dare to assume the most common case is "scenery scanning" which is quickly moving eyes and pausing onto a moving/static object for focus. A little bit of everything is happening there. 100% eye-tracking or 100% fix-gazing are not the only combination we encounter.

One might wonder then how is it fair to do only the pursuit camera (100% eye tracking simulation) for testing? - It's not. Pursuing an moving object with solid-color background like on testufo tests only for motion clarity. Barely anyone tests for motion blurrity (apart from "faulty" stationary camera tests). There are obviously many combinations, but it would be nice to see just the very basic ones in reviews.

Discorz wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 01:26

I also don't know a single person who solely relies on eye-tracking.

It's difficult to tell what are the exact ratios of eye/content speed vs eye/content direction, as these likely vary between individuals and different types of content. It's currently woefully under-researched territory as Chief says. The data would be very useful in determining the benefits of higher refresh rates and flicker.

There are a bunch of Tobii Eye Tracker videos online tho. I encourage everyone to try and analyse just 10 seconds of footage. Hard for head to wrap around it. But I'd dare to assume the most common case is "scenery scanning" which is quickly moving eyes and pausing onto a moving/static object for focus. A little bit of everything is happening there. 100% eye-tracking or 100% fix-gazing are not the only combination we encounter.

One might wonder then how is it fair to do only the pursuit camera (100% eye tracking simulation) for testing? - It's not. Pursuing an moving object with solid-color background like on testufo tests only for motion clarity. Barely anyone tests for motion blurrity (apart from "faulty" stationary camera tests). There are obviously many combinations, but it would be nice to see just the very basic ones in reviews.

Agreed on everything written. It's a interesting topic to explore.
But when the refresh rates are the same, as is the case here, and one display has the ability to greatly enhance eye-tracked motion clarity (PG27AQN w/ ULMB2) while the other one doesn't (OLED 360Hz = ~2,78ms MPRT), the objectively better pick becomes clear to me.
Doesn't it?

I assume the ratio of eye-tracked to fixed-gaze heavily depends on the workload as well.
e.g.: My assumption is that tracking-heavy games (OW2, Apex, Quake, spray in CS2,..) heavily rely on eye-tracked motion clarity, while also incorporating elements of fixed-gaze (perhaps a 70-30 ratio)
For tactical FPS games (outside of spraying), I assume the ratio isn't as clear-cut (50-50 or perhaps 40-60)
There's also the variable of subpar frame pacing (rapid frame time fluctuations, high min & max) not allowing one's eyes to relax as well, perhaps even altering the ratio or the way one plays.

Not to mention that, what's good in theory cannot be translated in practice just yet as of the date of writing.
Most ESports games either have a fixed frame rate lock (Apex, Quake, OW2) or are very unoptimized for latency (CS2, soon Valorant with their UE5 "update", Marvel Rivals, PUBG...)
This means that, there's only so much leeway you can achieve in terms of tackling fixed-gaze motion clarity.

This is why I suggest LCD, as you have the software freedom (ULMB 2, in the case of OP) to tremendously lower eye-tracked motion blur, while having similar-to-equal fixed-gaze motion clarity as a OLED equivalent.

I think of it as 2 bars (or knobs), each representing a type of motion blur, where:
OLED is of equal heights (representing MPRT),
LCD's eye-tracked one is greatly diminished, while having the equal height as OLED in terms of fixed-gaze

Though, my personal bias is speaking