46
Three year test shows OLED is significantly more reliable than LCD, with most lasting more than 10,000 hours — 20 TVs failed out of 102 tested (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/hardware@programming.dev
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Price and reliability don't scale.

all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 16 points 10 months ago

They also said that every single OLED suffered from burn in. I would count that as a partial failure for every OLED TV they tested.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] -3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    So expensive TVs last longer than cheap ones. That goodness this new information has come to light, thanks Tom's hardware for this breaking analysis.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Finally, when it comes to price, you'll be happy to know that quality control doesn't scale with cost. Some of the best-performing models were budget options, while some of the most expensive TVs didn't perform as well on the test.

    Literally the opposite of what they said.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    They said OLED had lowest failure rate, which is true, LCD has highest. LCD are cheap, OLED is expensive. They even said local dimming tech sits in the middle, which is true for price and returns. We get LCDs coming back all the time, OLEDs almost never.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    So it's about display technology and not the price. If you compare products of the same technology and the price you can see that it doesn't correspond to better longevity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • 7 comments in c/screens@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 17 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    10.000 hours is 416 days.

    Not exactly super IMO.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Well given you should sleep at least 1/3 of a day you would still get 600 days out of an abhorred abuse of your time

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Burn-in is still a problem, though. For actual television - not an issue, unless you leave CNN on all day every day. (What, do you live in an airport?) For a computer display... yeah, that's gonna show up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •