Blur Busters Forums

Hi everyone,

I recently read an article by Discorz (@Discorz your article was extremely helpful, so I’d really value your opinion on this) about the ViewSonic XG2431, especially regarding strobe tuning and QFT, and it helped me a lot in understanding how to properly configure the monitor.

I’m currently using two XG2431 units, along with a BenQ Zowie XL2566K, and I’d really appreciate some input on a few points—especially from @Discorz if you have time:

⸻

1. Unit-to-unit variance (XG2431, strobe mode)
Since I own two XG2431 units, I’m wondering how consistent strobe performance typically is between units.

In your experience:
• Should I expect both units to behave essentially the same in terms of crosstalk positioning and tuning response?
• Or is there enough panel variance that it’s worth testing both units carefully to identify a “better” one?

⸻

2. 144 Hz strobing: XG2431 vs XL2566K
I understand that the XG2431 is especially strong at lower refresh rates (60–120 Hz), particularly with proper tuning and QFT.

However, I’ve been testing 144 Hz strobing on the XL2566K, and the motion clarity is surprisingly good while still being very usable for competitive play.

At 144 Hz specifically:
• Do you think the XL2566K has an advantage in motion clarity?
• Or can a properly tuned XG2431 (with QFT via CRU) match or exceed it?

My current idea is to use the XG2431 for 60/120 Hz content, and then choose one of the two monitors for 144 Hz competitive gaming, but I’m unsure which direction is optimal.

⸻

3. Workflow: PC (QFT via CRU) vs console usage
Right now I’m using:
• One XG2431 configured for PC (with QFT via CRU)
• One XG2431 for console (e.g. Nintendo Switch), using standard timings + Strobe Utility only

Since QFT isn’t available on console, I’m wondering:
• Is it practical to use a single XG2431 for both use cases by switching between CRU profiles and Strobe Utility settings?
• Or is it better to keep separate configurations/devices to avoid inconsistencies or unintended side effects?

⸻

Thanks a lot in advance—your article has already been incredibly helpful.

Any insight is very appreciated.

Angel Soler wrote: ↑

29 Mar 2026, 10:02

2. 144 Hz strobing: XG2431 vs XL2566K
I understand that the XG2431 is especially strong at lower refresh rates (60–120 Hz), particularly with proper tuning and QFT.

However, I’ve been testing 144 Hz strobing on the XL2566K, and the motion clarity is surprisingly good while still being very usable for competitive play.

At 144 Hz specifically:
• Do you think the XL2566K has an advantage in motion clarity?
• Or can a properly tuned XG2431 (with QFT via CRU) match or exceed it?

My current idea is to use the XG2431 for 60/120 Hz content, and then choose one of the two monitors for 144 Hz competitive gaming, but I’m unsure which direction is optimal.

The XG2431's only use-case is 60–100 Hz strobing, since the BenQ doesn't have a single-strobe mode anymore.
The XL2566K completely obliterates the XG2431 in the 100–360Hz range with the Blurbusters utility.
In fact, all DyAc1/+ models obliterate the XG2431 by quite a large margin.
Not only that, the KTC M27P6 (27" 4K 160Hz) also completely obliterates both in terms of static & dynamic sharpness due to the pixel density & low MPRT (120–160 Hz strobing @ 0,75–0,875 ms MPRT @ 240 cd/m²)

kyube wrote: ↑

29 Mar 2026, 10:49

Angel Soler wrote: ↑

29 Mar 2026, 10:02

2. 144 Hz strobing: XG2431 vs XL2566K
I understand that the XG2431 is especially strong at lower refresh rates (60–120 Hz), particularly with proper tuning and QFT.

However, I’ve been testing 144 Hz strobing on the XL2566K, and the motion clarity is surprisingly good while still being very usable for competitive play.

At 144 Hz specifically:
• Do you think the XL2566K has an advantage in motion clarity?
• Or can a properly tuned XG2431 (with QFT via CRU) match or exceed it?

My current idea is to use the XG2431 for 60/120 Hz content, and then choose one of the two monitors for 144 Hz competitive gaming, but I’m unsure which direction is optimal.

The XG2431's only use-case is 60–100 Hz strobing, since the BenQ doesn't have a single-strobe mode anymore.
The XL2566K completely obliterates the XG2431 in the 100–360Hz range with the Blurbusters utility.
In fact, all DyAc1/+ models obliterate the XG2431 by quite a large margin.
Not only that, the KTC M27P6 (27" 4K 160Hz) also completely obliterates both in terms of static & dynamic sharpness due to the pixel density & low MPRT (120–160 Hz strobing @ 0,75–0,875 ms MPRT @ 240 cd/m²)

Hi, thanks a lot for the detailed reply — really appreciate it.

That makes sense regarding the ViewSonic XG2431 being especially strong in the 60–100/120 Hz range. That’s also been my understanding so far, particularly with proper tuning and QFT.

Regarding the BenQ Zowie XL2566K, I agree that DyAc+ is very effective at higher refresh rates, and from my initial testing at 144 Hz it does feel very clean and consistent.

That said, I’m particularly interested in how close a well-tuned XG2431 (with QFT via CRU and proper strobe phase/length tuning) can get to the XL2566K at 144 Hz in terms of motion clarity — especially in the center of the screen vs. crosstalk behavior near the edges.

Would you say the advantage of the XL2566K at 144 Hz is mainly due to:
• better default strobe tuning (plug & play consistency),
• or is there a fundamental limitation in the XG2431’s strobe implementation at higher refresh rates?

Also, if you’ve tested both extensively, I’d be very interested to know whether the gap at 144 Hz is large in practice, or more of a “noticeable but not dramatic” difference.

Thanks again — really helpful insights.

Angel Soler wrote: ↑

29 Mar 2026, 11:13

Regarding the BenQ Zowie XL2566K, I agree that DyAc+ is very effective at higher refresh rates, and from my initial testing at 144 Hz it does feel very clean and consistent.

That said, I’m particularly interested in how close a well-tuned XG2431 (with QFT via CRU and proper strobe phase/length tuning) can get to the XL2566K at 144 Hz in terms of motion clarity — especially in the center of the screen vs. crosstalk behavior near the edges.

Considering that the XL2566K has a high voltage boosting amplitude, which gets to 1700–2000 cd/m², as opposed to the XG2431's 700–1000 cd/m² and better G2G RT's, I'd say the difference is quite large.
I don't have exact data on the XL2566K's behavior sadly, nor do I own the 66K or the XG2431 to give you a proper comparison.

Angel Soler wrote: ↑

29 Mar 2026, 11:13

Would you say the advantage of the XL2566K at 144 Hz is mainly due to:
• better default strobe tuning (plug & play consistency),
• or is there a fundamental limitation in the XG2431’s strobe implementation at higher refresh rates?

The advantage is the large voltage boosting, leading to higher brightness at the same clarity a XG2431 would have.
The XL2566K's DyAc settings target a duty cycle of 16.2% (DyAc Premium) & 25.4% (DyAc High) out of the box (Source: Chimolog)
This implies the following:
100–160hz → blurbusters utility becomes a MUST for targetting <1 ms strobe 'On' period
160–240hz → dyac prem is OK (ootb becomes fine)
240-360hz → dyac prem & high OK (ootb becomes fine)

To be specific:
(region where Blurbusters Utility becomes a must IMO)
f=100
1,62 ms MPRT @ dyac prem
2,54 ms MPRT @ dyac high

f=120hz
1,34999946 ms MPRT @ dyac prem

...

(below is when ootb is viable)
f=160hz
1,0125 ms MPRT @ dyac prem

f=200
0,81 ms MPRT @ dyac prem
1,27 ms MPRT @ dyac high

...

(BOTH DYAC SETTINGS VIABLE STARTS BELOW)

f=240
~0,6750 ms MPRT @ dyac prem
~1,058333333418 ms MPRt @ dyac high

f=300
~0,54 ms MPRT @ dyac prem
~0,8466667 ms MPRT @ dyac high

f=360
~0,450 ms MPRT @ dyac prem
0,705555555358 ms MPRT @ dyac high


In contrast, the XG2431 has 4 settings in it's OSD menu:
Light (40%), Normal (30%), Extreme (20%), Ultra (10%)

Of course, all of these will be a much lower brightness target than the XL2566K.

What's also obvious is the viewing angle difference and the panel coating difference. Though, the latter can be somewhat circumvented by buying a screen protector, turning the display into a glossy coating option.

Overall, it's a matter of whether you want to sacrifice:
viewing angles & 60-100Hz strobing (XG2431)
for
higher brightness in a higher refresh rate range at the same or better clarity (100–360Hz; XL2566K)

I've also seen reports of the XG2431 dying within <2 years of use... so be mindful of that part as well.

Considering that I'm a strongly opposed to 60Hz flicker of any kind, I find the XG2431's use-case... redundant in today's market.
I'd rather get a KTC M27P6 for console use (120Hz strobing @ 0,75-0,875ms MPRT through HDMI) and/or a DyAc/ULMB capable display for PC use.

kyube wrote: ↑

29 Mar 2026, 11:51

Angel Soler wrote: ↑

29 Mar 2026, 11:13

Regarding the BenQ Zowie XL2566K, I agree that DyAc+ is very effective at higher refresh rates, and from my initial testing at 144 Hz it does feel very clean and consistent.

That said, I’m particularly interested in how close a well-tuned XG2431 (with QFT via CRU and proper strobe phase/length tuning) can get to the XL2566K at 144 Hz in terms of motion clarity — especially in the center of the screen vs. crosstalk behavior near the edges.

Considering that the XL2566K has a high voltage boosting amplitude, which gets to 1700–2000 cd/m², as opposed to the XG2431's 700–1000 cd/m² and better G2G RT's, I'd say the difference is quite large.
I don't have exact data on the XL2566K's behavior sadly, nor do I own the 66K or the XG2431 to give you a proper comparison.

Angel Soler wrote: ↑

29 Mar 2026, 11:13

Would you say the advantage of the XL2566K at 144 Hz is mainly due to:
• better default strobe tuning (plug & play consistency),
• or is there a fundamental limitation in the XG2431’s strobe implementation at higher refresh rates?

The advantage is the large voltage boosting, leading to higher brightness at the same clarity a XG2431 would have.
The XL2566K's DyAc settings target a duty cycle of 16.2% (DyAc Premium) & 25.4% (DyAc High) out of the box (Source: Chimolog)
This implies the following:
100–160hz → blurbusters utility becomes a MUST for targetting <1 ms strobe 'On' period
160–240hz → dyac prem is OK (ootb becomes fine)
240-360hz → dyac prem & high OK (ootb becomes fine)

To be specific:
(region where Blurbusters Utility becomes a must IMO)
f=100
1,62 ms MPRT @ dyac prem
2,54 ms MPRT @ dyac high

f=120hz
1,34999946 ms MPRT @ dyac prem

...

(below is when ootb is viable)
f=160hz
1,0125 ms MPRT @ dyac prem

f=200
0,81 ms MPRT @ dyac prem
1,27 ms MPRT @ dyac high

...

(BOTH DYAC SETTINGS VIABLE STARTS BELOW)

f=240
~0,6750 ms MPRT @ dyac prem
~1,058333333418 ms MPRt @ dyac high

f=300
~0,54 ms MPRT @ dyac prem
~0,8466667 ms MPRT @ dyac high

f=360
~0,450 ms MPRT @ dyac prem
0,705555555358 ms MPRT @ dyac high


In contrast, the XG2431 has 4 settings in it's OSD menu:
Light (40%), Normal (30%), Extreme (20%), Ultra (10%)

Of course, all of these will be a much lower brightness target than the XL2566K.

What's also obvious is the viewing angle difference and the panel coating difference. Though, the latter can be somewhat circumvented by buying a screen protector, turning the display into a glossy coating option.

Overall, it's a matter of whether you want to sacrifice:
viewing angles & 60-100Hz strobing (XG2431)
for
higher brightness in a higher refresh rate range at the same or better clarity (100–360Hz; XL2566K)

I've also seen reports of the XG2431 dying within <2 years of use... so be mindful of that part as well.

Considering that I'm a strongly opposed to 60Hz flicker of any kind, I find the XG2431's use-case... redundant in today's market.
I'd rather get a KTC M27P6 for console use (120Hz strobing @ 0,75-0,875ms MPRT through HDMI) and/or a DyAc/ULMB capable display for PC use.

Hi, thanks again for the detailed explanation — I really appreciate the level of depth you went into.
Your points about voltage boosting, G2G performance and how that translates into lower MPRT at higher refresh rates on the BenQ Zowie XL2566K make a lot of sense, especially in the 144 Hz and above range.
That said, in my particular case, brightness is not a major factor, since I play in a completely dark room. Because of that, I tend to focus more on perceived motion clarity itself rather than brightness headroom.
At the same time, I think the use-case plays a very important role here.
For my setup, I also spend a lot of time on 60 Hz content — especially console titles (e.g. Nintendo Switch) and certain PC games that are either capped or commonly played at 60 Hz. In that range, I still find the ViewSonic XG2431 extremely compelling, particularly because of how well it can be tuned (QFT + strobe phase/length), and the level of motion clarity it can achieve there.
From that perspective, I wouldn’t necessarily see the XG2431 as redundant, but rather as highly specialized for low refresh rate strobing, where it still seems to offer something quite unique.
At 144 Hz, I do agree that the XL2566K feels more consistent and easier to work with, and I can definitely see the technical advantages you described there. At the same time, I’m still curious about how close a fully optimized XG2431 can get in practice, especially in terms of perceived clarity in real gameplay scenarios.
So for now, I’m leaning towards a mixed approach:
XG2431 for 60 / 120 Hz content
XL2566K for 144 Hz and above
Thanks again for your insights — very helpful to understand the technical side in more detail.

Angel Soler wrote: ↑

29 Mar 2026, 10:02

1. If you meant GtG variance between units, it's most likely negligible. Room/panel temperature is a bigger factor. LCDs simply perform better when they're warmed up, especially VA and TN panels. Variances are usually in uniformity and backlight bleed.

2. 66K probably has the advantage in motion just because it uses TN panel with higher refresh rate. TN GtG is usually somewhat faster and higher refresh means larger QFT headroom for avoiding crosstalk. It's just that Zowie intentionally double-strobes low refresh rates to avoid flicker. Reason why ViewSonic is better at low refresh range is because they didn't lock it out.

Now, I don't know how 66K performs out-of-the-box at ~144 Hz range to compare it againgst XG. It is matter of whether it uses auto overdrive and does it pick the correct gain, or is the phase automated and optimal, or does it support QFT, or how practical it is... However Zowie does support Strobe Utility (like the XG), meaning its full potential is unlocked within the >100 Hz range.
If im not mistaken, overdrive might not be automated on the Zowie. If not, it still has a 30-level overdrive wihin the OSD (which is a must for strobe fine tuning), so you can manually re-adjust.

Basically what that translates to is:
- tuned 66K is probably better than tuned XG or,
- untuned 66K is probably worse than tuned XG or,
- untuned 66K is probably better than untuned XG.
This is only regarding crosstalk. Brightness headroom that Kyube mentioned can also be a thing, because it allows shorter pulse widths (sharper eye-tracking) which simultaneously avoid crosstalk slightly more effectively.

3. I see the struggle. It can be rather inconvenient to use multiple monitors, let alone spend extra money just to satisfy all needs. What would be ideal for you here is a single 66K without the low Hz limitations and with all the parameters automated (QFT, phase, overdrive...). Unfortunately it is what it is. This is something you'll have fo figure out your self. Maybe this is a good reminder for Zowie to finally unlock it for low Hz, just like how Nvidia recently did.

We need any custom resolution screen tool with QFT on gaming console for eliminate any crosstalk, ok?

Discorz wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2026, 07:17

Angel Soler wrote: ↑

29 Mar 2026, 10:02

1. If you meant GtG variance between units, it's most likely negligible. Room/panel temperature is a bigger factor. LCDs simply perform better when they're warmed up, especially VA and TN panels. Variances are usually in uniformity and backlight bleed.

2. 66K probably has the advantage in motion just because it uses TN panel with higher refresh rate. TN GtG is usually somewhat faster and higher refresh means larger QFT headroom for avoiding crosstalk. It's just that Zowie intentionally double-strobes low refresh rates to avoid flicker. Reason why ViewSonic is better at low refresh range is because they didn't lock it out.

Now, I don't know how 66K performs out-of-the-box at ~144 Hz range to compare it againgst XG. It is matter of whether it uses auto overdrive and does it pick the correct gain, or is the phase automated and optimal, or does it support QFT, or how practical it is... However Zowie does support Strobe Utility (like the XG), meaning its full potential is unlocked within the >100 Hz range.
If im not mistaken, overdrive might not be automated on the Zowie. If not, it still has a 30-level overdrive wihin the OSD (which is a must for strobe fine tuning), so you can manually re-adjust.

Basically what that translates to is:
- tuned 66K is probably better than tuned XG or,
- untuned 66K is probably worse than tuned XG or,
- untuned 66K is probably better than untuned XG.
This is only regarding crosstalk. Brightness headroom that Kyube mentioned can also be a thing, because it allows shorter pulse widths (sharper eye-tracking) which simultaneously avoid crosstalk slightly more effectively.

3. I see the struggle. It can be rather inconvenient to use multiple monitors, let alone spend extra money just to satisfy all needs. What would be ideal for you here is a single 66K without the low Hz limitations and with all the parameters automated (QFT, phase, overdrive...). Unfortunately it is what it is. This is something you'll have fo figure out your self. Maybe this is a good reminder for Zowie to finally unlock it for low Hz, just like how Nvidia recently did.

Hi Discorz,
Thank you very much for the detailed reply — I really appreciate the time you took to explain everything so clearly. It was extremely helpful and very insightful.
I also want to say thanks to everyone else in the thread — it’s been a very useful discussion overall.
Regarding the tuning process, I was planning to follow the same workflow shown in the video from your XG2431 article (using CRU and adjusting timings for QFT). My assumption is that the general approach should translate similarly to the BenQ Zowie XL2566K, but I’m not entirely sure if there are any important differences in practice when applying it to Zowie’s implementation.
I’ll likely use that as a starting point, but I wanted to ask if there is anything specific I should be aware of or adjust differently on the BenQ side.
Also, your comment about recent developments (similar to what Nvidia has been doing) caught my attention. I’ve been looking into the newer Asus displays using ULMB2 / Pulsar, especially for 60 Hz console use.
One limitation I currently have with the ViewSonic XG2431 is that on console I can’t use CRU/QFT, so I can’t fully optimize strobe behavior the same way as on PC. That’s why the idea of a display that handles low refresh strobing more effectively out-of-the-box is very interesting to me.
However, I’m trying to better understand how input lag compares across different measurement methods. For example, I measured around ~16 ms on the XG2431 using a Leo Bodnar device, while sources like RTINGS report ~25 ms for similar 60 Hz strobe scenarios on Asus ULMB2 displays.
Do you know if those measurements are directly comparable, or if they are capturing different parts of the signal chain? In other words, is it fair to assume that the XG2431 would still be faster in practice at 60 Hz, or is the difference more dependent on the measurement methodology?
Thanks again — your insights have been incredibly valuable.

Angel Soler wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2026, 12:11

I wanted to ask if there is anything specific I should be aware of or adjust differently on the BenQ side.

I'd assume the tuning process is identical:

1. Warm up the panel
2. Make a custom QFT resolution
3. Find acceptable pulse width/clarity/brightness for desired refresh rate
4. Temporarily find approximate clearest Pulse Phase for screen center and adjust to good Overdrive Gain
5. Readjust Pulse Phase and Overdrive Gain if needed

But there is always a chance of running into differences along the way.

Angel Soler wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2026, 12:11

I’ve been looking into the newer Asus displays using ULMB2 / Pulsar, especially for 60 Hz console use.
One limitation I currently have with the ViewSonic XG2431 is that on console I can’t use CRU/QFT, so I can’t fully optimize strobe behavior the same way as on PC.

Yeah, currently the new Pulsar (ULMB 2) monitors handle 60 Hz strobing the best out-of-the-box. It is both cleaner + clearer + brighter than fully tuned XG. That's 60 Hz strictly (non-VRR). Higher refresh rates are less impressive.

Angel Soler wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2026, 12:11

However, I’m trying to better understand how input lag compares across different measurement methods.

If methods in not mostly identical, I'd avoid comparing them.

Discorz wrote: ↑

01 Apr 2026, 01:23

Angel Soler wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2026, 12:11

I wanted to ask if there is anything specific I should be aware of or adjust differently on the BenQ side.

I'd assume the tuning process is identical:

1. Warm up the panel
2. Make a custom QFT resolution
3. Find acceptable pulse width/clarity/brightness for desired refresh rate
4. Temporarily find approximate clearest Pulse Phase for screen center and adjust to good Overdrive Gain
5. Readjust Pulse Phase and Overdrive Gain if needed

But there is always a chance of running into differences along the way.

Angel Soler wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2026, 12:11

I’ve been looking into the newer Asus displays using ULMB2 / Pulsar, especially for 60 Hz console use.
One limitation I currently have with the ViewSonic XG2431 is that on console I can’t use CRU/QFT, so I can’t fully optimize strobe behavior the same way as on PC.

Yeah, currently the new Pulsar (ULMB 2) monitors handle 60 Hz strobing the best out-of-the-box. It is both cleaner + clearer + brighter than fully tuned XG. That's 60 Hz strictly (non-VRR). Higher refresh rates are less impressive.

Angel Soler wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2026, 12:11

However, I’m trying to better understand how input lag compares across different measurement methods.

If methods in not mostly identical, I'd avoid comparing them.

Hey thank you so much for taking the time to reply and for explaining everything so clearly

I really appreciate the level of detail—it helped me understand everything much better

Thanks again from the bottom of my heart for your time