News: 0180528999

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Nvidia's New G-Sync Pulsar Monitors Target Motion Blur at the Human Retina Level (arstechnica.com)

(Tuesday January 06, 2026 @05:40PM (msmash) from the are-you-not-entertained dept.)


Nvidia's G-Sync Pulsar technology, first announced nearly two years ago as a solution to display motion blur caused by old images persisting on the viewer's retina, is [1]finally arriving in consumer monitors this week . The first four Pulsar-equipped displays -- from Acer, AOC, Asus and MSI -- hit select retailers on Wednesday, all sharing the same core specs: 27-inch IPS panels running at 1440p resolution and up to 360 Hz refresh rates. Nvidia claims the technology delivers the "effective motion clarity of a theoretical 1,000 Hz monitor."

The system uses a rolling scan scheme that pulses the backlight for one-quarter of a frame just before pixels are overwritten, giving them time to fully transition between colors before illumination. The approach also reduces how long old pixels persist on the viewer's retina. Previous "Ultra Low Motion Blur" features on other monitors worked only at fixed refresh rates, but Pulsar syncs its pulses to G-Sync's variable refresh rate.

Early reviews are mixed. The Monitors Unboxed YouTube channel [2]called it "clearly the best solution currently available" for limiting motion blur, while PC Magazine [3]described the improvements as "minor in the grand scheme of things" and potentially hard for casual viewers to notice.



[1] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2026/01/nvidias-new-g-sync-pulsar-monitors-target-motion-blur-at-the-human-retina-level/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXwXGYhi8_I

[3] https://www.pcgamer.com/nvidias-g-sync-pulsar-hopes-to-banish-a-form-of-motion-blur-thats-plague-pc-gaming-for-years/


Same principle as Asus ELMB, but more Advanced (Score:1)

by earlone ( 10233060 )

Nuff said.

OLED exists (Score:2)

by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

Literally topic. OLED exists and offers around 0,03ms response time.

If you're going to make a super expensive display for purposes of "high refresh rate with no ghosting", you may as well just go straight to OLED. No need to stick with LCD.

Re: (Score:3)

by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )

You're fundamentally misunderstanding the problem.

The problem is exacerbated by LCDs because their actual pixel change time is so utterly abysmal, but it exists for any display-and-hold display with long pixel display times. OLED + 300+hz does get pretty close to CRT levels of motion- but for the people who care about that, and want to have crisp motion at more reasonable frame rates, there is black-frame-injection. For LCDs, there is Pulsar, which improves upon backlight strobing.

Re: (Score:2)

by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )

Do you imagine that the phosphor stays lit for an entire scanout? lol

At 60Hz, you have a frame hold time of 16 2/3rd ms.

A good gaming CRT has a phosphor persistence time of ~3ms, which if we turn into FPS for the image hold time, is about 333.

Smart move staying anonymous for that dumbfuck comment, AC.

Pointless. (Score:2)

by Gravis Zero ( 934156 )

A good question is, how many games will be able to keep up with rendering at 360 FPS? A better question is, how many humans can see the difference between 80Hz and 360Hz?

Re: (Score:2)

by Xenx ( 2211586 )

I would say many/most could see the difference between 80Hz and 360Hz. You do get diminishing returns as you go higher. It would be harder for the average person to reliably tell the difference between 120Hz and 360Hz. The difference is generally considered imperceptible above around 200Hz. Aside from visual clarity, you technically still get a quicker human response time at higher frame rates. For most people that wouldn't be relevant, but could matter for professional play.

Re: (Score:2)

by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )

> It would be harder for the average person to reliably tell the difference between 120Hz and 360Hz.

Actually pretty easy, if you know what to look for.

Things like Pulsar, BFI, and backlight strobing exist to change that, though.

At 120Hz, motion blur is still acutely visible. At 300, It looks nice and clean.

That's not a reasonable game framerate target though, so that's why we have articles like this and teh relevant mitigating technologies.

Re: (Score:2)

by alvinrod ( 889928 )

If you're not playing at 4k, a lot of titles can push 300+ FPS easily, in particular the competitive titles that aren't designed to have the most graphical bling. In the landscape of competitive gaming, response time is what's important. For regular people they won't care about that difference, but the people who are competing are at the tail end of the bell curve and can feel that difference.

I personally think this is pointless for most consumers, but there are plenty of people who buy that marketing. F

The power of imagination (Score:2)

by OrangeTide ( 124937 )

I prefer text-based games and stories. I can do the motion blur in my head.

If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.