• ArtikBanana@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

    • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • ArtikBanana@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.