I can't find a clear answer as to what is better:
G sync at 165hz vs ULMB at 120hz?
From what I gathered, g sync is good if your frame rate fluctuates and ULMB is good if you lock 120+ fps. So if ULMB is the desired function, why buy a 144hz monitor? For the future when your performance drops as new games come out?
ulmb is shit, it suffers from drastically decreased brightness.
Anything over 144hz is pointless.
G sync is good for games that will run at below 60-85 fps. Also good for games that have a problem maintaining at least 120 fps.
ULMB you set at either 60, 85, 120hz usually. You want the Fps to be equal.
If you set it up poorly or your're some dumb kid that thinks a monitor's floor settings are good.
Never had an issue with brightness,
even if you crank up the brightness to 100%, as soon as you enable ulmb it will look like it's at 50%.
personally i couldn't see any benefits when enabling ulmb anyway.
there's a reason they advertise gsync first and ulmb second.
it's not just about motion blur reduction...
>Anything over 144hz is pointless.
it#s 30fps vs 60fps all over again
>even if you crank up the brightness to 100%, as soon as you enable ulmb it will look like it's at 50%.
LCDs are eye-searingly bright at 100%. 50% brightness is the absolute highest you should be setting an LCD in the first place.