4 ms·

Along similar lines, there's no way I would buy an OLED at this price point. If I'm dropping $3k on a monitor, it needs to be a technology that lasts, not a tec

Along similar lines, there's no way I would buy an OLED at this price point. If I'm dropping $3k on a monitor, it needs to be a technology that lasts, not a technology that wears out over time.

film42 8mo ago
I bought an LG 32" 4k OLED for $999 and it's hands down the best display I've ever used. No burn in even with lots of static browser/terminal windows for days and days. The fact that it's $3k and _not_ OLED is insulting.
- craftkiller 8mo ago
  I believe these monitors are meant for professionals, which means it is going to be used in bright office buildings. That means running the display at high brightness which is the worst case for OLED since they degrade faster at higher brightness. Quoting wikipedia: > A US Department of Energy paper shows that the expected lifespans of OLED lighting products goes down with increasing brightness, with an expected lifespan of 40,000 hours at 25% brightness, or 10,000 hours at 100% brightness
  - film42 7mo ago
    Maybe so. OLED comes with a risk, but I've run mine at 70-75% brightness with no issues. I probably drive mine ~2,500 hours per year, so if we make it 4 years that is a huge win in my book for something I stare at all day long. Plus, coding at night on OLED just makes me want to write more code. It's great.
szmarczak 8mo ago
Current gen OLEDs almost don't wear out (saying this as an OLED owner). To see the wear you need to have a completely black room and the wear is unnoticeable unless you're specifically looking for it. You don't need to spend 3k, 1k is enough.
- craftkiller 8mo ago
  Ah, you should update wikipedia then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED#Lifespan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED#Lifespan
  - szmarczak 8mo ago
    > In 2016, LG Electronics reported an expected lifetime of 100,000 hours 23 years for an older generation OLED seems fine to me, I don't understand the problem here?
    - craftkiller 8mo ago
      The US Department of Energy report from the same year reports far lower numbers, which I'd be more inclined to trust since they are impartial / not trying to market a product.
      - szmarczak 8mo ago
        True, but those numbers are from 2016, 10 years ago. For a more apples to apples comparison see [1] [2] [3]. [1] https://youtu.be/H43wnV-v7V0 https://youtu.be/H43wnV-v7V0 [2] https://youtu.be/RbEgQrigiLc https://youtu.be/RbEgQrigiLc [3] https://youtu.be/AZfwHcMLorY https://youtu.be/AZfwHcMLorY In my case, 3205 hours of use: - 428 pixel cleans - 1/3 brightness (my room is pretty dim and I often code during the night) - static control on - pixel shift on - apl low - sub-logo dim on - corner dim on. During the day I am not able to see any burn in. During the night it's unnoticeable unless you're looking for it. And it's only visible on gray backgrounds, unnoticeable during normal use. My phone (Nothing Phone 2) fails to capture it no matter how hard I try (even during the night). The only issue I had was at 2417 hours and it was vertical white stripes like this: [4] but they were completely gone after a manual pixel clean. No issues since. I am never going back, worth every penny I spent. [4] https://www.reddit.com/r/gigabyte/comments/1gyv1db/fo32u2_vertical_linesbands_suddenly_appeared/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gigabyte/comments/1gyv1db/fo32u2_ve...
        8mo ago
nicce 8mo ago
> If I'm dropping $3k on a monitor, it needs to be a technology that lasts, not a technology that wears out over time. I bought my OLED TV when fearmongering was the highest, and it still works perfectly with zero burn-ins. So it is definitely possible. I bought the tv 8 years ago.
- data-ottawa 8mo ago
  Yeah my LG C9 looks great, minor dimming where the captions are, but that’s it. In the 7 years since they’ve gotten better, with micro lens arrays and stuff to improve brightness without heat causing faster decay. RTINGs has some great content on TV longevity, but I haven’t seen anything for monitor workloads.

Along similar lines, there's no way I would buy an OLED at this price point. If I'm dropping $3k on a monitor, it needs to be a technology that lasts, not a technology that wears out over time.

film42 8mo ago

I bought an LG 32" 4k OLED for $999 and it's hands down the best display I've ever used. No burn in even with lots of static browser/terminal windows for days and days. The fact that it's $3k and _not_ OLED is insulting.

craftkiller 8mo ago
I believe these monitors are meant for professionals, which means it is going to be used in bright office buildings. That means running the display at high brightness which is the worst case for OLED since they degrade faster at higher brightness. Quoting wikipedia: > A US Department of Energy paper shows that the expected lifespans of OLED lighting products goes down with increasing brightness, with an expected lifespan of 40,000 hours at 25% brightness, or 10,000 hours at 100% brightness
- film42 7mo ago
  Maybe so. OLED comes with a risk, but I've run mine at 70-75% brightness with no issues. I probably drive mine ~2,500 hours per year, so if we make it 4 years that is a huge win in my book for something I stare at all day long. Plus, coding at night on OLED just makes me want to write more code. It's great.

szmarczak 8mo ago

Current gen OLEDs almost don't wear out (saying this as an OLED owner). To see the wear you need to have a completely black room and the wear is unnoticeable unless you're specifically looking for it. You don't need to spend 3k, 1k is enough.

craftkiller 8mo ago
Ah, you should update wikipedia then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED#Lifespan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED#Lifespan
- szmarczak 8mo ago
  > In 2016, LG Electronics reported an expected lifetime of 100,000 hours 23 years for an older generation OLED seems fine to me, I don't understand the problem here?
  - craftkiller 8mo ago
    The US Department of Energy report from the same year reports far lower numbers, which I'd be more inclined to trust since they are impartial / not trying to market a product.
    - szmarczak 8mo ago
      True, but those numbers are from 2016, 10 years ago. For a more apples to apples comparison see [1] [2] [3]. [1] https://youtu.be/H43wnV-v7V0 https://youtu.be/H43wnV-v7V0 [2] https://youtu.be/RbEgQrigiLc https://youtu.be/RbEgQrigiLc [3] https://youtu.be/AZfwHcMLorY https://youtu.be/AZfwHcMLorY In my case, 3205 hours of use: - 428 pixel cleans - 1/3 brightness (my room is pretty dim and I often code during the night) - static control on - pixel shift on - apl low - sub-logo dim on - corner dim on. During the day I am not able to see any burn in. During the night it's unnoticeable unless you're looking for it. And it's only visible on gray backgrounds, unnoticeable during normal use. My phone (Nothing Phone 2) fails to capture it no matter how hard I try (even during the night). The only issue I had was at 2417 hours and it was vertical white stripes like this: [4] but they were completely gone after a manual pixel clean. No issues since. I am never going back, worth every penny I spent. [4] https://www.reddit.com/r/gigabyte/comments/1gyv1db/fo32u2_vertical_linesbands_suddenly_appeared/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gigabyte/comments/1gyv1db/fo32u2_ve...
      - 8mo ago

nicce 8mo ago

> If I'm dropping $3k on a monitor, it needs to be a technology that lasts, not a technology that wears out over time. I bought my OLED TV when fearmongering was the highest, and it still works perfectly with zero burn-ins. So it is definitely possible. I bought the tv 8 years ago.

data-ottawa 8mo ago
Yeah my LG C9 looks great, minor dimming where the captions are, but that’s it. In the 7 years since they’ve gotten better, with micro lens arrays and stuff to improve brightness without heat causing faster decay. RTINGs has some great content on TV longevity, but I haven’t seen anything for monitor workloads.