Sadly high framerates come with strings attached! First they about double(120/60) and tripple (144/46) the time a pixel spends in transition.
Not necessarily.
Monitors have stuff like trace-free which uses overdrive to get to the desired color quicker. This overdrive can be different for different refresh rates: it's only normal to use more aggressive overdrive for 120Hz than for 60Hz.
So it's not correct that the relative time in transition is doubled or tripled: that would only be the case if the absolute transition time is the same as well. But there is no reason for that to be the case.
Second the screen also has to be scanned from top to bottom twice or thrice more often, which takes longer than the grey to grey pixel switching time. You can see the scanning wobble, a kind of gradual tearing of the screen on slow motion cameras.
In other words effectively every monitor has a certain percentage of downtime, in which it doesn't show useful frames but transitional states. This downtime is incrased the more transitions occur.
If the effective gray-to-gray of monitor after overdrive is, say, 2ms, then you still have plenty of time at 144Hz to get to the point where you need to be. That'd be the case for fast TN panels like in the Swift.
But even for slow panels where GtG takes longer than the refresh rate, it's still not disastrous: if it were, then those over-clocked Korean monitors (which have a gray-to-gray that is quite a bit longer than the 8.3ms, would be useless. Why then are people buying them?
There are two reasons for this:
1. The color doesn't have to be precise for us to be able to see something useful: it's fine if it's a bit off. And the transition from one gray to the next happens in an exponential matter, rapid at first, then slower. Even if the color is quite right when the next refresh arrives, it's already going to be at, say, 90%, which is more than enough.
2. Many color transitions are not worst-case black to white: if the top of screen is showing a blue sky with clouds, moving left to right isn't going to result in major fluctuations of those pixels. Maybe going from blue180 to blue230. For such small transitions, 8.3ms should be plenty to got close to the desired value.
Basically: the downtime you're talking about simply doesn't exist.
A Gsync monitor benefits from reduced latency that comes with the ability to display the frame the minute it is rendered, but dialed back to 40, 60 or an optimal FPS rate that has yet to be dermined, it may introduce less artifacts and less blur, than a 120Hz monitor. Just by simply spending less time in those transitional phases.
There's absolutely no way that GSYNC running at lower refresh rate is going to be better at blur than 120Hz ULMB. None.
This may be preferable to the eyestraining fakery of ULMB backlight strobing, which simply blacks out the transitional phases.
The backlight strobing isn't there to black out transitional phase. It's there to prevent the monitor from displaying content at the wrong location: a fast moving object on the screen without backlight strobing will be shown at the wrong location for the vast majority of the time. With strobing, that amount of time is reduced dramatically. That's what's reducing the blur. It has nothing (or at least very little) to do with transition time: even on super fast TN panels with 1ms transition, you will still have massive blurring at 60Hz even though transition is only a fraction of the refresh time.
There are 2 components to blur: transition time and correct location. You don't solve blur by fixing the first parameter alone. You have to fix the second one too. That's what strobing is doing for you.