OLED or IPS for my use case?

[Bugses]

I'm considering buying a OLED as my monitor, but I'm kinda worried about burn-in issues. I got a B8 tv, never had a problem, but I never really displayed static images on it for longer periods of time either.

It's a different beast with computers, and that worries me a little.

 

I game, sure, but I play games like BF, WoW etc, where the bottom row of the image never really changes.

I also browse a lot, I work from home doing spreadsheets etc. How concerned should I be about burn-in?

 

The monitors I'm looking at is the Alienware xxxDW and DWF

[filpo]

2 minutes ago, Bugses said:

The monitors I'm looking at is the Alienware xxxDW and DWF

OLED's are really good for response times and have amazing blacks

Also those your looking at are QD-OLED monitors so shouldn't suffer as much burn in as normal OLED monitors

I would go with the DWF version, mostly cuz its the newer one

[PDifolco]

31 minutes ago, filpo said:

OLED's are really good for response times and have amazing blacks

Also those your looking at are QD-OLED monitors so shouldn't suffer as much burn in as normal OLED monitors

I would go with the DWF version, mostly cuz its the newer one

and cheaper as well !  

But it's black vs white on the DW...

[filpo]

1 minute ago, PDifolco said:

But it's black vs white on the DW...

do you mean the colour of the monitor or of how it actually looks? AFAIK there isn't much difference between how they look (not aesthetically,  i mean the image)

[PDifolco]

21 minutes ago, filpo said:

do you mean the colour of the monitor or of how it actually looks? AFAIK there isn't much difference between how they look (not aesthetically,  i mean the image)

Colour of the back panel and foot

[YoungBlade]

If you do a lot of desktop productivity work, that's where burn-in is a real concern.

 

Gaming isn't that big of an issue - even for things like health bars, because the whole screen changes a lot more often then you might think. In FPS games like BF, you do leave the game and spend time in the lobby, or look in your inventory, or die, all of which does remove the static elements periodically. Some games, like WoW and Minecraft, could actually be a problem, as they have static inventory elements that basically never go away. So if you play WoW specifically a lot, that could be a concern.

 

Something like spreadsheet work has a lot of static elements on the screen for extended periods of time, and nothing you do in there removes them. Web browsing can also be a problem. And just being on the desktop, unless you set the taskbar to hide.

 

All that said, those Alienware monitors do come with a 3 year warranty that includes burn-in, so if it burns in quickly, you could get the display replaced if you report it within the warranty period. It just depends on if you think that period is a long enough time to own a monitor, or if you think that's too short.

 

[Bugses]

There's a part of me that thinks, it's idiotic to choose a display that's so fuzzy when it comes to using it.

A computer, to me, is something that's ready to be used in a lot of different cases, and your use case shouldn't be hindered by a monitor who has to be handled with gloves on.

 

And then there's the other part of me who just wants the best of both worlds. Who wants the amazing response time and image quality.

 

That being said, I think I'm leaning more towards another IPS display.

[e22big]

6 hours ago, filpo said:

OLED's are really good for response times and have amazing blacks

Also those your looking at are QD-OLED monitors so shouldn't suffer as much burn in as normal OLED monitors

I would go with the DWF version, mostly cuz its the newer one

QD actually burn-in faster than the normal WRGB OLED, as far as we currently known anyway

[e22big]

3 hours ago, Bugses said:

There's a part of me that thinks, it's idiotic to choose a display that's so fuzzy when it comes to using it.

A computer, to me, is something that's ready to be used in a lot of different cases, and your use case shouldn't be hindered by a monitor who has to be handled with gloves on.

 

And then there's the other part of me who just wants the best of both worlds. Who wants the amazing response time and image quality.

 

That being said, I think I'm leaning more towards another IPS display.

It's pretty much depends on the amount of time you've used your PC per day.

 

For game, it's not going to be a problem - no matter how many static elements you have on your display, that's because you'll game for what? at most 4-6 hours a day during a weekend? That sort of session is not going to burn-in OLED all that easily. But with productivity, you would probably spend a minimum 8 hours in front of your desk which could easily become 10-12 hours if you counted the time browsing the web privately or watching video or something. Doing that repeatedly everyday can burn-in your LED really fast (as early as a couple of weeks even), and OLED's just become inadvisable for that sort of use case.

 

But if you do a lot of productivity but not really use your monitor full time, that can also work. If you take a side job or OT from home every once in a while, OLED is probably still good for you. 

 

And yes, there are hassles you have to absolutely deal with OLED and yes, they actually don't make that much of a different (unless you are leaning on to what they are great at - HDR with a lot of dark scenes, competitive gaming, 60hz gaming etc.

[Stahlmann]

12 hours ago, Bugses said:

I work from home doing spreadsheets etc. How concerned should I be about burn-in?

Very. I'm of the opinion that burn in is pretty much a non-issue for a content consumption or gaming display. But as soon as work is included, which basically means 8 hours or so of static content every day, you'll want to stay away from OLED.

[Bugses]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'll go for a new IPS gaming monitor.

Right now I got 2x27" side by side, but I won't be able to do that with a 34" OLED and a 27" IPS next to it. My desk just isn't big enough for that.

 

If I had that option, I could easily just game on the OLED and do work related stuff on the IPS.

 

Even my browsing behavior would probably be a problem on an OLED. I've seen burn-in pictures of the bookmarks bar, and my browser is open A LOT during the day.

[XNOR]

15 hours ago, e22big said:

QD actually burn-in faster than the normal WRGB OLED, as far as we currently known anyway

People really need to stop extrapolating from what's realistically barely a result. The test isn't properly controlled to compare apples to apples, so any conclusions are speculative at best, and completely imaginary at worst.

[Stahlmann]

14 hours ago, XNOR said:

People really need to stop extrapolating from what's realistically barely a result. The test isn't properly controlled to compare apples to apples, so any conclusions are speculative at best, and completely imaginary at worst.

It's as apples to apples as possible. The people that don't like the test results are mostly the ones that bought one of the products that do badly and are coping now or trying to justify their purchase.

 

And why sould one not extrapolate from their current results? And TV that has burn-in now will still have burn-in in the future. And the ones that don't have burn-in could still have none.

[e22big]

22 hours ago, XNOR said:

People really need to stop extrapolating from what's realistically barely a result. The test isn't properly controlled to compare apples to apples, so any conclusions are speculative at best, and completely imaginary at worst.

It was absolutely controlled and test under the exact same condition, they even have the exact methodology clearly explained here

 

How Long Should A TV Last? Our 100 TV Accelerated Longevity And Burn-In Test - RTINGS.com

 

You could argue that it doesn't exactly replicate real life usage, and you would be right. But this is absolutely as apple to apple as you can get when it comes to a display. 

 

It might not burn-in just as fast as in the accelerated longevity test but it will most likely burn-in before WRGB OLED from LG under the same condition. The gap between it and S95B when it comes to burn-in isn't small

[XNOR]

8 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

It's as apples to apples as possible.

For it to be apples to apples you would normalize for things like brightness to measure longevity while performing as similarly as possible. Now they're running them all out, but generational improvements mean that's not the same. That's before taking into account that wear seems to be non-linear with temperature, which means that a 10% reduction in brightness could mean a lot bigger improvement in terms of wear. Dell or Samsung Display could have overcooked the maximum, with the display might still be superior in all circumstances matching the competition. Or not. We won't know, because the test isn't set up for that.

 

I don't own one of these displays, so I'm not justifying anything. I just don't like people drawing conclusions which don't follow from the data.

[Stahlmann]

3 minutes ago, XNOR said:

For it to be apples to apples you would normalize for things like brightness to measure longevity while performing as similarly as possible. Now they're running them all out, but generational improvements mean that's not the same. That's before taking into account that wear seems to be non-linear with temperature, which means that a 10% reduction in brightness could mean a lot bigger improvement in terms of wear. Dell or Samsung Display could have overcooked the maximum, with the display might still be superior in all circumstances matching the competition. Or not. We won't know, because the test isn't set up for that.

 

I don't own one of these displays, so I'm not justifying anything. I just don't like people drawing conclusions which don't follow from the data.

In that case it's still on the manufacturer when they decide to push brightness while trading off longevity. Most living room TV's will probably run with maxed brightness either way. I'd say while keeping the points you made in mind, one can still draw some conclusions from the testing RTINGS is doing.

[XNOR]

6 minutes ago, e22big said:

It was absolutely controlled and test under the exact same condition, they even have the exact methodology clearly explained here

See my previous post. They run every display at maximum brightness, which seems apples to apples, until you realize that the output can be tens or even hundreds of watts apart. Brightness and the resulting heat are major contributors to wear in an OLED, so without normalizing for this, we've only discovered what we already know, which is that OLED is impacted by heat.

[XNOR]

7 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

In that case it's still on the manufacturer when they decide to push brightness while trading off longevity. Most living room TV's will probably run with maxed brightness either way. I'd say while keeping the points you made in mind, one can still draw some conclusions from the testing RTINGS is doing.

Who runs their TV at maximum brightness? People don't even do that with LCD. Especially true HDR screens can get eye-searingly uncomfortable.

 

The alarmist claims about QD-OLED wearing out lose most of their relevance when you realize this is at much higher brightness that the competitor. It's pretty obvious a screen with many more NITS outputs more heat, and that this is likely to impact OLED wear negatively. So we've discovered one of the fundamental properties of current gen OLED. That's not very useful information.

 

Edit: just to check myself I checked out the brightness of the various screens in my house. None are anywhere near maximum brightness. Most are under 50%.

[e22big]

12 hours ago, XNOR said:

Who runs their TV at maximum brightness? People don't even do that with LCD. Especially true HDR screens can get eye-searingly uncomfortable.

 

The alarmist claims about QD-OLED wearing out lose most of their relevance when you realize this is at much higher brightness that the competitor. It's pretty obvious a screen with many more NITS outputs more heat, and that this is likely to impact OLED wear negatively. So we've discovered one of the fundamental properties of current gen OLED. That's not very useful information.

 

Edit: just to check myself I checked out the brightness of the various screens in my house. None are anywhere near maximum brightness. Most are under 50%.

Umn.. I am pretty sure everyone who buy OLED, especially premium OLED, run their TV at max. At least in HDR. 

 

The distinction factor between standard OLED and high end OLED, including QD-OLED is the extra brightness. If that isn't your concern why bother going QD-OLED in the first place when there's plethora of midrange OLED available for cheaper.

 

With LCD, you may not run it at max in SDR but HDR will probably also get max out as well. You've paid for that brightness in a HDR LCD TV and monitor, and it's actually needed to maintain HDR image quality. And they would consume even more power than OLED in that configuration (LCD HDR TV can go more than 200w when displaying 1000+ nits, OLED tend to be around 70-120w) 

[Andrewtst]

13 hours ago, XNOR said:

Who runs their TV at maximum brightness?

For HDR content, you should run at maximum 100% brightness. 

 

This is not the case for SDR content. 

 

13 hours ago, XNOR said:

Especially true HDR screens can get eye-searingly uncomfortable.

Absolutely not, In maximum 100% brightness for HDR (OLED or local dimming display) not means the screen stay always 100%, it adjust to what the content intend to show. If you put below 100% brightness will impact the suppose output. 

[XNOR]

On 5/18/2023 at 5:51 AM, Andrewtst said:

For HDR content, you should run at maximum 100% brightness. 

 

This is not the case for SDR content. 

 

Absolutely not, In maximum 100% brightness for HDR (OLED or local dimming display) not means the screen stay always 100%, it adjust to what the content intend to show. If you put below 100% brightness will impact the suppose output. 

They're not running HDR content though, they're running regular CNN. This means they're not just showing a couple of HDR highlights at peak brightness, but running the whole screen at eye searing maximums, and associated heat output.

 

Quote

All 100 TVs are displaying the exact same content: a live stream of the U.S. version of CNN, untouched, with all commercials and breaks intact.

 

[Andrewtst]

1 hour ago, XNOR said:

They're not running HDR content though, they're running regular CNN. This means they're not just showing a couple of HDR highlights at peak brightness, but running the whole screen at eye searing maximums, and associated heat output.

 

 

For selling, off course all running 100%. Shop is very bright and they need to striking out the output. No surprise and this is very common practice. 

[XNOR]

On 5/22/2023 at 6:43 AM, Andrewtst said:

For selling, off course all running 100%. Shop is very bright and they need to striking out the output. No surprise and this is very common practice. 

Sure, though I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the test. The rest is supposed to be representative for wear in a real world, if worst case, scenario. That's why they also cycle them.

[e22big]

On 5/22/2023 at 10:25 AM, XNOR said:

They're not running HDR content though, they're running regular CNN. This means they're not just showing a couple of HDR highlights at peak brightness, but running the whole screen at eye searing maximums, and associated heat output.

 

 

Most TV OS run with HDR right out of the box though, I also don't think it's a common use case for people to turn down brightness for regular content but then maxing it out for HDR.

 

If anything, you tend to set your TV once and then just forget about it. 

[XNOR]

On 5/24/2023 at 5:05 AM, e22big said:

Most TV OS run with HDR right out of the box though, I also don't think it's a common use case for people to turn down brightness for regular content but then maxing it out for HDR.

 

If anything, you tend to set your TV once and then just forget about it. 

You want brightness maxed out for HDR, as the highlights are bright and the rest is much more reasonable. If you max regular content out everything is uncomfortably bright. That is fine for a store or environment with huge amounts of light, but way too much for a living room, especially at night.

 

Though we might be nearing the point where even the highlights may become too much.