haxxiy said:
To clarify, since most competitive gamers wouldn't use BFI unless it matched the refresh rate, ghosting wouldn't be an issue, only crosstalk. Now, I don't know how bad the de-syncing gets in very HRF monitors but usually it isn't too bad and you can adjust the strobing manually in a lot of gaming monitors. Will ULMB2 as a factory standard be preferable to going through the trouble? I think that will depend a lot on manufacturer quality control and how well the algorithm can adjust to temperature changes, age, etc. At times, however, that comparison video felt a bit misleading since he was comparing ULMB2 to images with no BFI at all or to lower-resolution monitors (or that horrible 500 Hz screen). Now if I'm not mistaken the 2021 LG OLEDs can do BFI at 120 Hz and look crisp AF with no strobe mistimes. Personally, I'd go for that for motion clarity and overall image quality, even if it's a little dim. |
Well the purpose of the test is to compare it against the 3 best esports monitor options in the market. While two are 1080p monitors yes but they are generally preferred over 1440p monitors because of the motion clarity given by the refresh rate or tech like DyAc+. They aren't good monitors for something like playing Cyberpunk in HDR and all that but for esports, they prefer monitors like that due to the advantages they give to esports titles which is the main target market of ULMB.
Esports gamers also wouldn't use 120Hz oled for competitive gaming as the refresh rate is too low and realistically those TVs are big for most people. Hell they likely wouldn't even use 32 inch gaming monitors because it's too dang big since they need to have the entire game within their vision without having to move their neck. They need high refresh monitors with as much motion clarity and low response times as possible. At best, they will use the new 1440p 240Hz OLED monitors or go with the above solution.
PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850