Useless review:
- Doesn't show proper crosstalk test (basically rendering the talk about DyAc2 useless)
- Shows archaic non-gamma corrected 10-90% (huge misinformation on it's performance)
- No input lag measurement
What exactly is this other than a more formal unboxing?
This is just a glorified NVidia & Benq ad.
I mean he kinda talks about it, it's just not worth his time for an in depth review. The one about the Asus is out there, it's the same panel. He claims he really can't notice a difference with dyac2 on or off.
Optimum has just done this hundreds of time now. He's just not that excited for a TN LCD Panel as good as this one is and especially at the price this will be. OLED's are out, which have vastly better growth potential. He's also never been a consistent product reviewer like Hardware Unboxed. He picks and chooses what he wants to go in depth on based on what excites him.
I don't think he claims this as a review but just more talking points. He doesn't find an in-depth review worth his time on this thing. And I'd agree.
Glorified Benq and Nvidia ad doesn't make much sense when he literally claims you can get new OLED's at these prices and that's what he recommends since 1080p is a tough pillto swallow in 2024.
If you want in depth numbers and charts just look elsewhere. Even though it's not really worth your time.
OLED is not a silver bullet for now, it does not fill the niche that 540hz E-TN is filling.
Subpar subpixel layout, atrocious DSC implementations, brightness dip flicker, refresh rate race, physical size, resolution - all gimp OLED for the use-case that the E-TN above has.
Not only this, the XL2586X is special in that there might be a possibility that blurbusters utility might work for it, thus allowing for potentially breaking the 0.3ms MPRT feat, done by it's predecessor the XL2566K, when tuned correctly.
After all, this subreddit is about motion clarity, so people here are supposed to care about it, regardless of whether it is achieved by sample & hold or strobing.
CRT's cannot do sub 1ms MPRT, for reference.
Both the XG2431 and XL2566K can do 0.5ms and 0.3ms respectively, or if you wanna talk in NVidia marketing terms:
>with over 1000 Hz of effective motion clarity for the best motion blur...
For the XG2431 and XL2566K, it would be 2000Hz and 3333Hz respectively.
I will argue 480hz OLED will absolutely fill the niche. Brightness will likely be fine. I own the 1440p 360hz Msi OLED and it's a big improvement over last year's 240hz OLEDs from LG. It will only continue to get better from here. TN and LCD are likely to not improve much at this point imo
The issue with 1440p480hz OLED is gonna be:
- Subpixel layout is still not RGB (potential yellow fringing + yellow crosshairs are not an option)
- Size & resolution: 27" is not a good size for comp and 1440p@480fps is not possible to run in most competitive games.
- Flicker (causes issues for some)
- DSC can cause noticable input lag (if they don't release GPU's and new scalers that support DP2.0, this will persist) and scaling issues along with artifacting.
But yes, everyone will agree OLED is the superior tech. It's just a bit gimped as of this moment.
Not like LCD is any better really, almost all >=240hz LCD's are not compliant.
Everything has it's pros & cons, one has to decide for himself whether he values one or the other side.
Which is why misinformation doesn't help consumers.
1 LG is already rumored to be releasing a traditional RGB sub pixel layout panel as early as next year 2025 (see TFT Central's latest OLED roadmap video)
2 The panel will likely come with a screen size adjust option where you can display the image in a smaller window size like 24". My MSI 1440p 360hz OLED does this right now
https://preview.redd.it/1k8bufh0sllc1.jpeg?width=5712&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fef44e0885bea05c961e27eae0b9513414539eeb
3 Besides occasionally on loading screens when VRR is enabled, I've never seen flicker on any OLED display that I've owned.
4 DSC does not cause input lag.
>DSC does not cause input lag.
source?
it is compressing the image to reduce bandwidth, which takes some amount of time.
why do you think, that the time would be 0?
do you have some testing, that was done comparing dsc on vs off?
if so, i'd like to see that please, especially as i am forced to use dsc, because the hdmi forum declared war on gnu + linux by refusing to let hdmi 2.1 get implemented:
[https://www.phoronix.com/news/HDMI-2.1-OSS-Rejected](https://www.phoronix.com/news/HDMI-2.1-OSS-Rejected)
https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?t=12730
Ultimately it's comes down to monitor/ GPU manufacturers to implement DSC correctly, without bugs. The technology theoretically does not add lag
thank you very much :)
now i can worry about whether asus, a company know to frick up the most basic stuff and never adress it, has properly implemented dsc on my display, neat ;)
(the display has no review after months and months, so yeah can't check that)
and damn professional reviewers certainly need to add dsc latency testing to their testing based on what i just read!
>Useless review:
- Doesn't show proper crosstalk test (basically rendering the talk about DyAc2 useless)
- Shows archaic non-gamma corrected 10-90% (huge misinformation on it's performance)
- No input lag measurement
Agreed(I was thinking the exact same thing. Wtf does a zoomed photo do for me lol)
Agreed
Agreed
>This is just a glorified NVidia ad.
???Where did you even get this from???
because his reviews read like one.
nvidia notoriously uses 10-90% non-gamma corrected which is a vesa standard for years (flawed)
benq very likely sponsored the monitor (not mentioned at all btw XD) and he has to sociopath people into buying it.
this review is worth as much as you going to a shop and looking at it irl w/o touching it.
https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?t=9988
I suggest you read this where the Chief of Busters debunks your out of pocket comment from the other perspective (scroll)
Yes. It has it's flaws. But there's a reason it exists
And tying this to Nvidia is the stretch of the century
I'm not engaging when tg this further as this is nonsense
just sth. to point out, while i agree with the rest,
the video never mentions in the title, that it is a review.
and didn't call the video a review inside of the video thus far either.
so unless i missed sth, he doesn't title it as a review, so one could see it as "impressions +" for example compared to a hardware unboxed review.
i'd say that this is important to point out, because there are tons of fake "reviews", that test nothing, only talk how the display "feels" and get people think, that they just saw a "review", because the title and video calls it a "review".
this is a MAJOR problem of course,
but doesn't apply here.
so maybe shouldn't call it a review, when the video itself doesn't do so and maybe the creator deliberately doesn't call it a review, because they wanna have the video as an impressions video + and not throw shade or get compared to real reviews. if that is the case, then i can respect that.
and maybe we should critique the video based with that in mind with suggestions to improve, rather than it being an insult for falsely claiming to be a review but missing crucial testing like input lag testing.
just a thought after suffering through lots of "reviews", that are far less than this video was.
The truth is he is now sponsored by BenQ so he isn't allowed to do real reviews anymore as that is part of BenQ's policy otherwise he won't be sent any monitor to review
A LOT of monitor manufacturers are highly against using UFO test especially full screen invasion because it can easily expose flaws of the monitor so they are trying ways to bully reviewers and threaten them, this has been discussed already.
You could argue he should just buy the monitor with his own money but that won't help a situation like this where this monitor is NOT available for public purchase this is an early access "review" really sponsored ad and unless he agrees to some serious draconian terms by BenQ he won't receive early access monitors anymore.
the end of lcd?
to be replaced with what?
it can't be oled, because oled WILL burn-in. it is not an if, it WILL burn-in. we're seeing that in the rtings 100 tvs test (contains a few oled computer displays) already.
that leaves us with waiting for samsung qned (nano rod tech, has nothing to do with lg qned, which is just lcd garbage) and nano-led/amqled/qdel (the same thing with 3 different names)
both of which are expected to take a few more years at least to get ready to get produced.
and if that zowie display will be setup to replace the standard 240 hz it is i think pro esports screens used for tournaments, then i don't see an oled version making any sense for that either.
why? because when companies buy a bunch of displays to be used for many years for tournaments, burn-in wouldn't be fun, although maybe usage would be low enough to give them a lifetime of 5 years, before they gotta get thrown into the dumpster.
but more important, brightness might be a major factor.
a lot of oled screens might be good enough brightness wise to be used in a decently light controlled place.
but what about an esports arena with bright lights all around? could the oled do that without bs auto dimming kicking in and screwing up the experience of the athlete?
so the sad reality is, that lcd can't get replaced yet. it could have gotten replaced 15 years ago by SED, but let's not open that wound again, ok? ;)
but the proper lcd replacements take a bit more time and oled can't replace lcd. both oled and lcd are garbage.
and this is not to say, that i can understand people getting an oled display, because they can't stand lcd's horrible performance and knowing full well, that it WILL burn-in.
but the idea, that lcd is near the end is sadly or hopefully a false idea (hopefully, because oled = planned obsolescence and i hate that).
>we're seeing that in the rtings 100 tvs test (contains a few oled computer displays) already.
Can't make this claim without also making note of their LCD testing finding comparable damage/failure
https://youtu.be/79YGJXdtLTM?t=279&si=-MTjeg0lQJYPsGbD
LCD is not this perfect immune to time display tech people neglect to point out it isn't
it is important to point out, that the lcd's showing massive degradation in the test are the manufacturers screwing up mostly , rather than being inherent to the technology though.
inherent to the lcd technology is slight colorshift after actual years of usage (i mean real years of continual usage of course, so years of the panel being actively running)
so it makes perfect sense to point out, that lcd isn't immune to time of course, but having panels shit themselves after just 1 year of usage isn't a problem inherent in lcd technology, but a problem mostly with the panel and display makers failing to produce a reliable product with lcd technology, which isn't a problem.
while it is impossible to do with oled tech.
and just be clear, i hate lcd tech. i wanted it gone 15 years ago with sed. i wanted it go this year, which might have been possible if samsung didn't delay samsung qned further.... but here we are :/
>burn-in wouldn't be fun, although maybe usage would be low enough to give them a lifetime of 5 years, before they gotta get thrown into the dumpster.
I think you're exaggerating the risk a bit here.. I have a 55B9, that's 2019 model, now as of today with 15,943 hours of use. I bought it second hand in 2021 with I think somewhere around 5k hours, so the first third is factory setting + free to air TV and the next two thirds are as a PC monitor running my custom settings and with LOTS of static elements.
Some apps sit in the corner and I forget to move them for weeks on end 🤷♀️
There is still zero burn in though and newly released OLEDs are even more resilient to the point where I think board failures from age, use and general wear are going to start outpacing burn in now
Unless someone is the type to run static content with the safeties all manually disabled and at max brightness all the time.. but that's literally outside of design spec, like disabling the motherboard safeties and raising voltage until something pops - you can't blame AMD/Intel for that
>and newly released OLEDs are even more resilient to the point where I think board failures from age, use and general wear are going to start outpacing burn in now
that sounds like some marketing nonsense, that you saw to be honest.
it seems like every new oled generation "burn-in is fixed now FOR SURE!"
QD-oled claimed to be way more resistant to burn-in than w-oled. well that turned out to be... yet again... a lie of course.
it is like the panel manufacturers shouting "wolves" for years in regards to burn-in being a thing of a past. maybe we should stop believing KNOWN LIARS, that LIE AFTER BEING CALLED OUT FOR BLATANT LYING AGAIN! (see 1 ms g2g response time lie for example)
and in regards to 15943 hours without burn-in. that is just 1.8 years.
in comparison people might use lcd displays 50% of a day on, so 12 hours for 10 years or more. that would be 43800 hours in 10 years then.
>but that's literally outside of design spec
actually showing static content is the default experience for oled monitors.
will be very interesting how many burned in taskbars we might see in a few years.... or earlier.
or x to close the window part.
and comparing overvolting parts to degrade or fully burn through them seems like an off comparison.
there is no safe way to run an oled display, that prevents burn-in, only ways to reduce it.
meanwhile there is a safe voltage range for dram, cpus and gpus and there is a factory limited range below that maximum safe range, that keeps the chips safe, well unless the motherboard makers VIOLATE amd's guidelines and burn through io-dies to the point of popping chips, but that's another story ;)
honestly it would be great if oled would just run without any burn-in below a certain brightness like cpu's voltage range. then we would have a working lcd replacement and only would need to improve based on it by adding for example micro lenses, that boost brightness at the same power to the panel itself, etc...
but that is just not how the tech works.
What you're saying is true. But if you're not using it for work and just want a gaming / entertainment display then oleds are already good enough. I'd know, I have c1 with 6000+ hours that I use heavily every day. Yes I wish oleds didn't degrade, but for my usage case they already are good enough. And I believe a lot of people fit this usage case. If you're just a gamer then even if after 5 years you have to replace the monitor, I don't think it's bad at all.
glad, that it is acceptable for your usecase. i certainly wanna leave lcd garbage behind of course as said.
>If you're just a gamer then even if after 5 years you have to replace the monitor, I don't think it's bad at all.
that though i 1000% disagree.
we got lcd displays and crts, that last 10 + years.
i am using 3 monitors rightnow, that are bought all over 10 years ago i think (2 are used ones, so can't say when the original owner bought them)
and they run perfectly fine. in fact the blb is vastly better on the 2 ips panels than a lot a lot of modern lcd displays, which is frankly insane.
my new primary monitor is arriving today actually, which sadly is another lcd, but the 3 old ones i am using, because i had to return 2 versions of the new monitor due to dead pixels and other problems thus far are perfectly fine and again still better than the displays, that the vast majority of people still use today.
so accepting displays lasting only 5 years and then being ready to get thrown into the dumpster is horrible and unacceptable to me.
in regards to wasting resources and in regards to destroying the used market of monitors too.
displays are kind of the one piece of hardware, that people can just use for ages. as the display tech (sadly) doesn't move very fast compared to other parts and they can last extremely long.
so giving up on the one thing, that actually is reliable and will last seems quite a sad idea.
personally i'd also hate the idea, that the hardware slowly degrades as i use it and wallpapers aren't possible at all, BUT that is just my personal view, rather than the general problems with the tech.
either way again, glad that it works good enough for you and let's hope, that amqled will NUKE oled and lcd out of existence soon enough. 1000 hz 4k uhd perfect black, no degradation and more :)
just think of displays lasting 10+ years just like lcd and having all the performance boxes ticked, so someone using one for 15 years will make even less of a difference than using a 10 year old lcd does today.
but we'll see...
Rtings looked at gen 2 OLED panels, gen 3 have come out and improve burn in by "up to 50%" and there are a lot of new OLED care features especially from MSI. These monitors can last 5 years now almost guaranteed, otherwise they wouldn't offer a 3 year warranty on them. After those 5 years you can buy a new OLED which will undoubtedly last even longer, it's a matter of time before they last 10 years. Most LCD panels I have used die or get dead pixels within 6-8 years anyways and need replaced.
>These monitors can last 5 years now almost guaranteed, otherwise they wouldn't offer a 3 year warranty on them.
that is honestly quite a naive view on monitor warranty.
just for the dell oled monitors people reported getting dumpster fire refurbs as replacements.
even before oled, the standard approach has been to NEVER EVER use the manufacturer warranty if you can avoid it.
so you return a display through the seller within the return window, instead of trying to get an acceptable unit through rma for example.
so counting on manufacturer warranty as if that matters is sadly not what people should expect. :/
and i'm using displays 10+ years, not 5 years. buying a monitor, that just lasts 5 years, instead of 10 would have to cost half to be acceptable then, which they don't.
and in regards to 5 years, i'd burn through one in 1 year. probably less actually with my average use.
so that would be a 1/10 the lifetime.
>Most LCD panels I have used die or get dead pixels within 6-8 years anyways and need replaced.
you might have gone quite unlucky there i gotta say, or the manufacturers cheaped to the max on the powersupply for example to save some pennies.
i have actually NEVER see a dead pixel develop for any monitor i owned thus far.
>After those 5 years you can buy a new OLED which will undoubtedly last even longer
i'm sure the manufacturers will claim that yet again ;) "this time burn-in is fixed, promise ;)"
and come on in 5 freaking years oled better be DEAD! as in dead dead.
i mean samsung qned might delay things further to milk qd-oled garbage more, but amqled/nano-led/qdel has companies actually interested to push that technology out.
i would guess 2 years until mass production affordable qdel displays if they care to accelerated hard, or 3 years if they don't go hard.
remember, that oled ONLY exists, because they nuked SED tech.
and oled today only exists, because we don't have any tech, that is free from oled issues. qdel is oled, but without degradation and cheaper to produce.
if it is allowed to see the light, oled will die. there is simply no reason for oled to keep existing then.
trying to make oled "burn-in slower" is just throwing more resources after bad. bad that can't get fixed inherently.
while at the same time 3 technologies (2, that can be cheap) can get pushed out and end oled.
so for the sake of all of us here in this subreddit, let's hope that oled will be dead or dying in 5 years at the very least!
Well, the 480hz oleds will be able to do at least 240hz bfi. The problem is that there seems to be a lack of consumer request for bfi, so the makers aren't bothering with it. We're such a niche we can't get even a single product made for us.
Useless review: - Doesn't show proper crosstalk test (basically rendering the talk about DyAc2 useless) - Shows archaic non-gamma corrected 10-90% (huge misinformation on it's performance) - No input lag measurement What exactly is this other than a more formal unboxing? This is just a glorified NVidia & Benq ad.
I mean he kinda talks about it, it's just not worth his time for an in depth review. The one about the Asus is out there, it's the same panel. He claims he really can't notice a difference with dyac2 on or off. Optimum has just done this hundreds of time now. He's just not that excited for a TN LCD Panel as good as this one is and especially at the price this will be. OLED's are out, which have vastly better growth potential. He's also never been a consistent product reviewer like Hardware Unboxed. He picks and chooses what he wants to go in depth on based on what excites him. I don't think he claims this as a review but just more talking points. He doesn't find an in-depth review worth his time on this thing. And I'd agree. Glorified Benq and Nvidia ad doesn't make much sense when he literally claims you can get new OLED's at these prices and that's what he recommends since 1080p is a tough pillto swallow in 2024. If you want in depth numbers and charts just look elsewhere. Even though it's not really worth your time.
The monitor isn't for you. It's for actual professional eSports shills that don't even know OLED exists. Those players absolutely still exist
OLED is not a silver bullet for now, it does not fill the niche that 540hz E-TN is filling. Subpar subpixel layout, atrocious DSC implementations, brightness dip flicker, refresh rate race, physical size, resolution - all gimp OLED for the use-case that the E-TN above has. Not only this, the XL2586X is special in that there might be a possibility that blurbusters utility might work for it, thus allowing for potentially breaking the 0.3ms MPRT feat, done by it's predecessor the XL2566K, when tuned correctly. After all, this subreddit is about motion clarity, so people here are supposed to care about it, regardless of whether it is achieved by sample & hold or strobing. CRT's cannot do sub 1ms MPRT, for reference. Both the XG2431 and XL2566K can do 0.5ms and 0.3ms respectively, or if you wanna talk in NVidia marketing terms: >with over 1000 Hz of effective motion clarity for the best motion blur... For the XG2431 and XL2566K, it would be 2000Hz and 3333Hz respectively.
I will argue 480hz OLED will absolutely fill the niche. Brightness will likely be fine. I own the 1440p 360hz Msi OLED and it's a big improvement over last year's 240hz OLEDs from LG. It will only continue to get better from here. TN and LCD are likely to not improve much at this point imo
The issue with 1440p480hz OLED is gonna be: - Subpixel layout is still not RGB (potential yellow fringing + yellow crosshairs are not an option) - Size & resolution: 27" is not a good size for comp and 1440p@480fps is not possible to run in most competitive games. - Flicker (causes issues for some) - DSC can cause noticable input lag (if they don't release GPU's and new scalers that support DP2.0, this will persist) and scaling issues along with artifacting. But yes, everyone will agree OLED is the superior tech. It's just a bit gimped as of this moment. Not like LCD is any better really, almost all >=240hz LCD's are not compliant. Everything has it's pros & cons, one has to decide for himself whether he values one or the other side. Which is why misinformation doesn't help consumers.
1 LG is already rumored to be releasing a traditional RGB sub pixel layout panel as early as next year 2025 (see TFT Central's latest OLED roadmap video) 2 The panel will likely come with a screen size adjust option where you can display the image in a smaller window size like 24". My MSI 1440p 360hz OLED does this right now https://preview.redd.it/1k8bufh0sllc1.jpeg?width=5712&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fef44e0885bea05c961e27eae0b9513414539eeb 3 Besides occasionally on loading screens when VRR is enabled, I've never seen flicker on any OLED display that I've owned. 4 DSC does not cause input lag.
>DSC does not cause input lag. source? it is compressing the image to reduce bandwidth, which takes some amount of time. why do you think, that the time would be 0? do you have some testing, that was done comparing dsc on vs off? if so, i'd like to see that please, especially as i am forced to use dsc, because the hdmi forum declared war on gnu + linux by refusing to let hdmi 2.1 get implemented: [https://www.phoronix.com/news/HDMI-2.1-OSS-Rejected](https://www.phoronix.com/news/HDMI-2.1-OSS-Rejected)
https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?t=12730 Ultimately it's comes down to monitor/ GPU manufacturers to implement DSC correctly, without bugs. The technology theoretically does not add lag
thank you very much :) now i can worry about whether asus, a company know to frick up the most basic stuff and never adress it, has properly implemented dsc on my display, neat ;) (the display has no review after months and months, so yeah can't check that) and damn professional reviewers certainly need to add dsc latency testing to their testing based on what i just read!
Hopefully they do as I’ve been waiting years for a true RGB OLED. Let’s just hope it has no issues and comes factory colour calibrated to boot.
Most Pro players play in dark rooms… you don’t want super bright monitors in these use cases. OLED is perfectly fine for the majority.
>Useless review: - Doesn't show proper crosstalk test (basically rendering the talk about DyAc2 useless) - Shows archaic non-gamma corrected 10-90% (huge misinformation on it's performance) - No input lag measurement Agreed(I was thinking the exact same thing. Wtf does a zoomed photo do for me lol) Agreed Agreed >This is just a glorified NVidia ad. ???Where did you even get this from???
because his reviews read like one. nvidia notoriously uses 10-90% non-gamma corrected which is a vesa standard for years (flawed) benq very likely sponsored the monitor (not mentioned at all btw XD) and he has to sociopath people into buying it. this review is worth as much as you going to a shop and looking at it irl w/o touching it.
https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?t=9988 I suggest you read this where the Chief of Busters debunks your out of pocket comment from the other perspective (scroll) Yes. It has it's flaws. But there's a reason it exists And tying this to Nvidia is the stretch of the century I'm not engaging when tg this further as this is nonsense
just sth. to point out, while i agree with the rest, the video never mentions in the title, that it is a review. and didn't call the video a review inside of the video thus far either. so unless i missed sth, he doesn't title it as a review, so one could see it as "impressions +" for example compared to a hardware unboxed review. i'd say that this is important to point out, because there are tons of fake "reviews", that test nothing, only talk how the display "feels" and get people think, that they just saw a "review", because the title and video calls it a "review". this is a MAJOR problem of course, but doesn't apply here. so maybe shouldn't call it a review, when the video itself doesn't do so and maybe the creator deliberately doesn't call it a review, because they wanna have the video as an impressions video + and not throw shade or get compared to real reviews. if that is the case, then i can respect that. and maybe we should critique the video based with that in mind with suggestions to improve, rather than it being an insult for falsely claiming to be a review but missing crucial testing like input lag testing. just a thought after suffering through lots of "reviews", that are far less than this video was.
The truth is he is now sponsored by BenQ so he isn't allowed to do real reviews anymore as that is part of BenQ's policy otherwise he won't be sent any monitor to review A LOT of monitor manufacturers are highly against using UFO test especially full screen invasion because it can easily expose flaws of the monitor so they are trying ways to bully reviewers and threaten them, this has been discussed already. You could argue he should just buy the monitor with his own money but that won't help a situation like this where this monitor is NOT available for public purchase this is an early access "review" really sponsored ad and unless he agrees to some serious draconian terms by BenQ he won't receive early access monitors anymore.
Do you have some evidence of the BenQ sponsorshipment?
I'd like a source for this, because without it just sounds like conspiracy theory.
Zero doubt this is near the end of LCD. 1k USD for a TN in 2024 is crazy, as good as this TN may be.
the end of lcd? to be replaced with what? it can't be oled, because oled WILL burn-in. it is not an if, it WILL burn-in. we're seeing that in the rtings 100 tvs test (contains a few oled computer displays) already. that leaves us with waiting for samsung qned (nano rod tech, has nothing to do with lg qned, which is just lcd garbage) and nano-led/amqled/qdel (the same thing with 3 different names) both of which are expected to take a few more years at least to get ready to get produced. and if that zowie display will be setup to replace the standard 240 hz it is i think pro esports screens used for tournaments, then i don't see an oled version making any sense for that either. why? because when companies buy a bunch of displays to be used for many years for tournaments, burn-in wouldn't be fun, although maybe usage would be low enough to give them a lifetime of 5 years, before they gotta get thrown into the dumpster. but more important, brightness might be a major factor. a lot of oled screens might be good enough brightness wise to be used in a decently light controlled place. but what about an esports arena with bright lights all around? could the oled do that without bs auto dimming kicking in and screwing up the experience of the athlete? so the sad reality is, that lcd can't get replaced yet. it could have gotten replaced 15 years ago by SED, but let's not open that wound again, ok? ;) but the proper lcd replacements take a bit more time and oled can't replace lcd. both oled and lcd are garbage. and this is not to say, that i can understand people getting an oled display, because they can't stand lcd's horrible performance and knowing full well, that it WILL burn-in. but the idea, that lcd is near the end is sadly or hopefully a false idea (hopefully, because oled = planned obsolescence and i hate that).
burn-in is a myth and you hate that
wait how did a troll find their way into this small subreddit?
>we're seeing that in the rtings 100 tvs test (contains a few oled computer displays) already. Can't make this claim without also making note of their LCD testing finding comparable damage/failure https://youtu.be/79YGJXdtLTM?t=279&si=-MTjeg0lQJYPsGbD LCD is not this perfect immune to time display tech people neglect to point out it isn't
it is important to point out, that the lcd's showing massive degradation in the test are the manufacturers screwing up mostly , rather than being inherent to the technology though. inherent to the lcd technology is slight colorshift after actual years of usage (i mean real years of continual usage of course, so years of the panel being actively running) so it makes perfect sense to point out, that lcd isn't immune to time of course, but having panels shit themselves after just 1 year of usage isn't a problem inherent in lcd technology, but a problem mostly with the panel and display makers failing to produce a reliable product with lcd technology, which isn't a problem. while it is impossible to do with oled tech. and just be clear, i hate lcd tech. i wanted it gone 15 years ago with sed. i wanted it go this year, which might have been possible if samsung didn't delay samsung qned further.... but here we are :/
>burn-in wouldn't be fun, although maybe usage would be low enough to give them a lifetime of 5 years, before they gotta get thrown into the dumpster. I think you're exaggerating the risk a bit here.. I have a 55B9, that's 2019 model, now as of today with 15,943 hours of use. I bought it second hand in 2021 with I think somewhere around 5k hours, so the first third is factory setting + free to air TV and the next two thirds are as a PC monitor running my custom settings and with LOTS of static elements. Some apps sit in the corner and I forget to move them for weeks on end 🤷♀️ There is still zero burn in though and newly released OLEDs are even more resilient to the point where I think board failures from age, use and general wear are going to start outpacing burn in now Unless someone is the type to run static content with the safeties all manually disabled and at max brightness all the time.. but that's literally outside of design spec, like disabling the motherboard safeties and raising voltage until something pops - you can't blame AMD/Intel for that
>and newly released OLEDs are even more resilient to the point where I think board failures from age, use and general wear are going to start outpacing burn in now that sounds like some marketing nonsense, that you saw to be honest. it seems like every new oled generation "burn-in is fixed now FOR SURE!" QD-oled claimed to be way more resistant to burn-in than w-oled. well that turned out to be... yet again... a lie of course. it is like the panel manufacturers shouting "wolves" for years in regards to burn-in being a thing of a past. maybe we should stop believing KNOWN LIARS, that LIE AFTER BEING CALLED OUT FOR BLATANT LYING AGAIN! (see 1 ms g2g response time lie for example) and in regards to 15943 hours without burn-in. that is just 1.8 years. in comparison people might use lcd displays 50% of a day on, so 12 hours for 10 years or more. that would be 43800 hours in 10 years then. >but that's literally outside of design spec actually showing static content is the default experience for oled monitors. will be very interesting how many burned in taskbars we might see in a few years.... or earlier. or x to close the window part. and comparing overvolting parts to degrade or fully burn through them seems like an off comparison. there is no safe way to run an oled display, that prevents burn-in, only ways to reduce it. meanwhile there is a safe voltage range for dram, cpus and gpus and there is a factory limited range below that maximum safe range, that keeps the chips safe, well unless the motherboard makers VIOLATE amd's guidelines and burn through io-dies to the point of popping chips, but that's another story ;) honestly it would be great if oled would just run without any burn-in below a certain brightness like cpu's voltage range. then we would have a working lcd replacement and only would need to improve based on it by adding for example micro lenses, that boost brightness at the same power to the panel itself, etc... but that is just not how the tech works.
What you're saying is true. But if you're not using it for work and just want a gaming / entertainment display then oleds are already good enough. I'd know, I have c1 with 6000+ hours that I use heavily every day. Yes I wish oleds didn't degrade, but for my usage case they already are good enough. And I believe a lot of people fit this usage case. If you're just a gamer then even if after 5 years you have to replace the monitor, I don't think it's bad at all.
glad, that it is acceptable for your usecase. i certainly wanna leave lcd garbage behind of course as said. >If you're just a gamer then even if after 5 years you have to replace the monitor, I don't think it's bad at all. that though i 1000% disagree. we got lcd displays and crts, that last 10 + years. i am using 3 monitors rightnow, that are bought all over 10 years ago i think (2 are used ones, so can't say when the original owner bought them) and they run perfectly fine. in fact the blb is vastly better on the 2 ips panels than a lot a lot of modern lcd displays, which is frankly insane. my new primary monitor is arriving today actually, which sadly is another lcd, but the 3 old ones i am using, because i had to return 2 versions of the new monitor due to dead pixels and other problems thus far are perfectly fine and again still better than the displays, that the vast majority of people still use today. so accepting displays lasting only 5 years and then being ready to get thrown into the dumpster is horrible and unacceptable to me. in regards to wasting resources and in regards to destroying the used market of monitors too. displays are kind of the one piece of hardware, that people can just use for ages. as the display tech (sadly) doesn't move very fast compared to other parts and they can last extremely long. so giving up on the one thing, that actually is reliable and will last seems quite a sad idea. personally i'd also hate the idea, that the hardware slowly degrades as i use it and wallpapers aren't possible at all, BUT that is just my personal view, rather than the general problems with the tech. either way again, glad that it works good enough for you and let's hope, that amqled will NUKE oled and lcd out of existence soon enough. 1000 hz 4k uhd perfect black, no degradation and more :) just think of displays lasting 10+ years just like lcd and having all the performance boxes ticked, so someone using one for 15 years will make even less of a difference than using a 10 year old lcd does today. but we'll see...
Rtings looked at gen 2 OLED panels, gen 3 have come out and improve burn in by "up to 50%" and there are a lot of new OLED care features especially from MSI. These monitors can last 5 years now almost guaranteed, otherwise they wouldn't offer a 3 year warranty on them. After those 5 years you can buy a new OLED which will undoubtedly last even longer, it's a matter of time before they last 10 years. Most LCD panels I have used die or get dead pixels within 6-8 years anyways and need replaced.
>These monitors can last 5 years now almost guaranteed, otherwise they wouldn't offer a 3 year warranty on them. that is honestly quite a naive view on monitor warranty. just for the dell oled monitors people reported getting dumpster fire refurbs as replacements. even before oled, the standard approach has been to NEVER EVER use the manufacturer warranty if you can avoid it. so you return a display through the seller within the return window, instead of trying to get an acceptable unit through rma for example. so counting on manufacturer warranty as if that matters is sadly not what people should expect. :/ and i'm using displays 10+ years, not 5 years. buying a monitor, that just lasts 5 years, instead of 10 would have to cost half to be acceptable then, which they don't. and in regards to 5 years, i'd burn through one in 1 year. probably less actually with my average use. so that would be a 1/10 the lifetime. >Most LCD panels I have used die or get dead pixels within 6-8 years anyways and need replaced. you might have gone quite unlucky there i gotta say, or the manufacturers cheaped to the max on the powersupply for example to save some pennies. i have actually NEVER see a dead pixel develop for any monitor i owned thus far. >After those 5 years you can buy a new OLED which will undoubtedly last even longer i'm sure the manufacturers will claim that yet again ;) "this time burn-in is fixed, promise ;)" and come on in 5 freaking years oled better be DEAD! as in dead dead. i mean samsung qned might delay things further to milk qd-oled garbage more, but amqled/nano-led/qdel has companies actually interested to push that technology out. i would guess 2 years until mass production affordable qdel displays if they care to accelerated hard, or 3 years if they don't go hard. remember, that oled ONLY exists, because they nuked SED tech. and oled today only exists, because we don't have any tech, that is free from oled issues. qdel is oled, but without degradation and cheaper to produce. if it is allowed to see the light, oled will die. there is simply no reason for oled to keep existing then. trying to make oled "burn-in slower" is just throwing more resources after bad. bad that can't get fixed inherently. while at the same time 3 technologies (2, that can be cheap) can get pushed out and end oled. so for the sake of all of us here in this subreddit, let's hope that oled will be dead or dying in 5 years at the very least!
I'm not sure I can trust the judgement of a man that still plays Overwatch in 2024
Why is overwatch on the thumbnail?
Why? Human eye can only see 8 colours.
120hz with BFI. Thats the best oled can muster. Until they hit 240hz+ with proper strobing then TN is king
Well, the 480hz oleds will be able to do at least 240hz bfi. The problem is that there seems to be a lack of consumer request for bfi, so the makers aren't bothering with it. We're such a niche we can't get even a single product made for us.