this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
1 points (66.7% liked)
Hardware
47 readers
1 users here now
A place for quality hardware news, reviews, and intelligent discussion.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?