• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are ULMB and adaptive sync incompatible features?

M

maniacalpha1-1

Diamond Member
In reading some of the TFT central reviews, I got the impression that they thought that it was a driver/firmware bug that Free/G-Sync and ULMB did not run at the same time. Is that the case or are those technologies that will never run together?

If never, is 144hz enough of an anti-motion blur feature?

Trying to decide how important ULMB is, as I could go with cheaper options if it's not essential or if adaptive sync should be prioritized anyway.
 
My monitor is one of the "choice" monitors.

Freesync is used far more often for me since most games I play are new and cannot hit these refresh rates consistently. But I have tried Freesync off a few times for games that get between 60-90 and it's not that bad compared to non V Sync on a 60hz monitor. But Freesync is smoother for sure.

Backlight strobing, at least on my monitor, creates crosstalk. It almost seems counter-intuitive to have this in a "blur reduction" mode. But in some games it is much less noticeable. If a game consistently gets 144hz I use strobing and see if I can really notice the crosstalk or not. I vastly prefer strobing in CS:GO as I find the smoothness amazing. It is truly a game changer. 144hz CS:GO has got nothing on 144hz CS:GO with backlight strobing. It's that amazing.

Backlight strobing is presently only useful for games that can maintain these high refresh rates. My monitor only supports it at 120/144hz. Others have more options. I couldn't use it in a Call of Duty for example since that is a 90fps game, or any game with a 60fps cap. And then even if I can use it, personally, I have to see if I can really notice the crosstalk. So it's a conditional, not always useful feature.
 
Ah, very interesting. Being able to deprioritize ULMB would allow me to consider the NXVUE24A ($270ish) if I decide to go 1080p, or MG278Q/XG270HU for 1440p. Thought about a VG248QE today at Best Buy but no freesync...

I'm looking to upgrade from a 1080p 60hz TV, for comparison...
 
Note that for example Benq offers monitors with blur reduction which is GPU agnostic meaning it works with an AMD and NV gpu. ULMB only works with NV GPU. So I would for sure choose a vendor agnostic way.

Second point is on what kind of hardware and what games you play. Blur reduction means you should be able to get high FPS to fully benefit from it. Which means you need a good CPU and GPU. And if you only play single-player it's kind of a waste. And even for multiplayer shooters. If you are not already good it won't help that much. If your aim sucks it will still suck you will just see it better that you suck.

Now to what is the actual benefit? If have an Benq XL2430T display. With 120 hz and blur reduction on in below test I can read the names of the streets on the map. This is impossible with a standard 60 hz screen:

http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo&photo=toronto-map.png&pps=960&pursuit=0&height=0

Note: Run it in Chrome. Only browser this tests run reliably. Esepcially at 120 hz.
 
beginner99 said:
Note that for example Benq offers monitors with blur reduction which is GPU agnostic meaning it works with an AMD and NV gpu. ULMB only works with NV GPU. So I would for sure choose a vendor agnostic way.

Second point is on what kind of hardware and what games you play. Blur reduction means you should be able to get high FPS to fully benefit from it. Which means you need a good CPU and GPU. And if you only play single-player it's kind of a waste. And even for multiplayer shooters. If you are not already good it won't help that much. If your aim sucks it will still suck you will just see it better that you suck.

Now to what is the actual benefit? If have an Benq XL2430T display. With 120 hz and blur reduction on in below test I can read the names of the streets on the map. This is impossible with a standard 60 hz screen:

http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo&photo=toronto-map.png&pps=960&pursuit=0&height=0

Note: Run it in Chrome. Only browser this tests run reliably. Esepcially at 120 hz.
Click to expand...

Wow, just ran it on my BenQ. 144hz without Blur Reduction and I can only kinda read the names. Turn it on and I can read them clearly.
 
crisium said:
Wow, just ran it on my BenQ. 144hz without Blur Reduction and I can only kinda read the names. Turn it on and I can read them clearly.
Click to expand...

Yeah this test is great to show the advantages of blur reduction. Or to show how normal LCDs pretty much suck with moving images compared to CRTs.

In-game the difference IMHO isn't that obvious. Still my KDR in BFBC2 still is clearly higher now.
 
So, my idea had been to wait for Oculus and see if I liked that better than monitors, but since it came out so much more expensive than expected, I'm thinking of not going down that early-adopter path, and back to monitor searching.

That said, I tried the test-ufo (just the UFO one, not the map one) on an asus VG248QE in a store. Couldn't play any games on it, but I really liked how the difference showed on 144hz just for the UFO.

I know it has light boost as an available option, but I don't even think it was enabled.

So a question - I have never perceived (that I know of) screen tearing in normal gameplay (only see things like that when an old GPU was overheating), so I'm not sure how valuable adaptive sync is to me. Thus...my thought processes on a new monitor are:

1. Do I want to splurge for 2560/1440
2. Do I need adaptive sync
3. Is 144hz sufficient blur reduction without getting ULMB?

Basically, that means I feel like I'm choosing between:

1. VG248QE (sub-$300)
2. XG270HU (hits the 1440p and 144hz) and $450-ish
3. XB270HU (TN version) or XL2730Z - $500+

Any thoughts? Right now I have a GTX 970, but I would expect a monitor to be with me 5+ years, whereas I can reasonably expect to upgrade GPU after 18-24 months, so it matters little whether I get a freesync or g-sync one now, as I won't be on the 970 forever.

And I think as far as GPU power goes, I'm ok with 970 on 1440p, as I don't mind turning off a couple of things like shadows to grab an extra FPS or two.
 
Last edited:
This is just my opinion, but I think in the future nVidia will move to Adaptive sync and, if they follow their normal MO they will discontinue Gsync support. There are going to be more and more monitors coming out with Adaptive sync support and nVidia isn't going to want to lose that market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top