They say the burn-in issue is “largely addressed” and link to an article about OLED monitor manufacturers offering a 2-year OLED warranty (3 year in the case of MSI).
That’s pathetic, especially for how much OLED monitors cost. Quality monitors are a costly investment and I use mine for so much longer than 2-3 years. OLED burn-in is not “largely addressed” and is still a significant concern when deciding if I want to drop a grand on a monitor.
It’s cool, you just have to drop a grand every year or two to enjoy that gorgeous screen. Think of it like a subscription to a 15% prettier screen for only 5x the price over 10 years.
Other than the Samsung S95C which is the newest model in their test.
16 months of extremely intensive tests which isn’t how you’ll use these IRL. Which is why they refer to it as “accelerated longevity test”.
If you’ll read a bit more about the test and the results, you’ll see that all of the LCDs there are also having other permanent issues.
According to them, if your usage includes varied content, burn in won’t be an issue.
If you don’t, reading more about the test and about specific monitors / TVs you’re curious about will give you a better idea.
On a tv, it shouldn’t be much of an issue. On a monitor, there’s bound to be fixed UI elements from the desktop, whatever it is that are displayed most of the time.
That’s true. But if you look into the test, it includes monitors and has them showing footage with static elements.
At the 6 months mark, which is aprox. 2.5 years real life usage according to RTings, the monitors barely had any burn-in according to RTings - Although I couldn’t see any burn-in. If you compare it to the non-OLED TVs at that mark, many of those had very noticeable uniformity (and other) issues.
So according to this test, the monitors are already doing better than LCDs.
They say the burn-in issue is “largely addressed” and link to an article about OLED monitor manufacturers offering a 2-year OLED warranty (3 year in the case of MSI).
That’s pathetic, especially for how much OLED monitors cost. Quality monitors are a costly investment and I use mine for so much longer than 2-3 years. OLED burn-in is not “largely addressed” and is still a significant concern when deciding if I want to drop a grand on a monitor.
It’s cool, you just have to drop a grand every year or two to enjoy that gorgeous screen. Think of it like a subscription to a 15% prettier screen for only 5x the price over 10 years.
Have you seen RTings’ articles about this?
Like: Real-Life OLED Burn-In Test On 6 TVs
Seems to really depend on your usage, and newer ones are even better according to their latests test: Longevity Burn-In Test Updates And Results From 100 TVs
According to RTing’s latest testing update via that link:
Only one of their OLED displays isn’t burning-in yet. And this is after only 16 months.
Other than the Samsung S95C which is the newest model in their test.
16 months of extremely intensive tests which isn’t how you’ll use these IRL. Which is why they refer to it as “accelerated longevity test”.
If you’ll read a bit more about the test and the results, you’ll see that all of the LCDs there are also having other permanent issues.
According to them, if your usage includes varied content, burn in won’t be an issue.
If you don’t, reading more about the test and about specific monitors / TVs you’re curious about will give you a better idea.
On a tv, it shouldn’t be much of an issue. On a monitor, there’s bound to be fixed UI elements from the desktop, whatever it is that are displayed most of the time.
That’s true. But if you look into the test, it includes monitors and has them showing footage with static elements.
At the 6 months mark, which is aprox. 2.5 years real life usage according to RTings, the monitors barely had any burn-in according to RTings - Although I couldn’t see any burn-in. If you compare it to the non-OLED TVs at that mark, many of those had very noticeable uniformity (and other) issues.
So according to this test, the monitors are already doing better than LCDs.