this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
1 points (66.7% liked)
Hardware
33 readers
1 users here now
A place for quality hardware news, reviews, and intelligent discussion.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Interesting and not so interesting update to RTINGS burn-in test. Quick summary:
Keep in mind that this test is inherently unrealistic as they are stressing these displays way more than 99% of people would ever do. They are continually displaying static content with extremely limited variation in pixel colour for extended periods of time. However they are also only displaying SDR content so this doesnt really represent what continual HDR use might do.
It's pretty much confirmed that they're safe to use for normal day-to-day use now. Under these conditions you can expect 5+ years of use without serious problems.
Any idea how to manually run the long compensation cycle on one of the Alienware oled's?
It should prompt you for it automatically every 1500hours use unless you disabled it the first time it asks you to.
Otherwise it does the shorter 5-15min cycle after 6hours of continuous use or whenever it goes to standby/powered off after being used for a few hours.
The short one is called Pixel Refresh, the longer one is called Panel Refresh and takes about an hour.
Samsung just doesn't want to have people's trust do they? Huge shame that a company that can build an awesome hardware is consistently this scummy and makes weird software choices.
I wouldn't say it's necessarily unrealistic.
They found burn-in with 700 hours of 16:9.
But how long should the monitor go before burning in?
3 years? In 1.5 years, 700 hours of 16:9 is only about 1.2 hours a day of 16:9 content which is not unrealistic in the slightest. Even double that is not unrealistic and burn-in in less than 1 year...
That's certainly problematic.
This is exactly what happened to my monitor. Visible burn-in in 10 months, and 1.5 years on now it's even worse.
Did you miss the part where they explicitly tested in on the same content the entire time, which makes burn in much worse?
Well, it is purposefully done to accelerate aging on the monitor. Anyway, did someone say "displaying static content with extremely limited variation in pixel colour for extended periods of time."? Well, game UI, and crosshair is a good example of that. Plus we do HDR in games too. So for people who game 10 hours a day, watch this I guess...
Only if you play the exact same game every single time and always on the same scene.
You can easily make 400 hours in game like witcher 3.
So, witcher 3, CP2077, one other long game and bam, you have burn in.
Not to mention no lifes that can do 3k hours CSGO in 1 year or other multiplayer games.
It is an accelerated test. Sure under normal usage you won't see the effects in the time span rtings have but if you have the TV for 5 years you can build up to a similar amount of wear.
It is an accelerated test. Sure under normal usage you won't see the effects in the time span rtings have but if you have the TV for 5 years you can build up to a similar amount of wear.
Typical marketing BS. Make monitor good in review, then tank the performance to avoid burn in warranty claims.
I wonder if anyone has tested "underclocking" an OLED monitor; for example, if it can do 1000 cd/m^2 nits, run it at 600 cd/m^2. I would guess this would provide a much longer lifespan, and basically be the equivalent of paying more for a longer-lasting monitor?