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
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Keep in mind that this test is inherently unrealistic

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.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Did you miss the part where they explicitly tested in on the same content the entire time, which makes burn in much worse?