LG 48CX OLED - 4K 120 Hz

[sandys]

I would be using it for hours at a time also with static terminals and menus, particularly sitting as home all day working on it during lockdown, a screensaver may come in useful, but perhaps the screen saver is not even on long enough to reverse any possible damage if you are straight back on the dame static screens?

 

[Woodsta888]

https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/real-life-oled-burn-in-test

Rtings have been carrying out burn in tests on LG OLEDS. Seems you'll have to go some on some sets.

 

[sadbuttrue]

The rtings live CNN test is most applicable to desktop/productivity use. For work you'd be using it for 8 hours+ per day, so look at the burn-in around 52 weeks for 3 years of use. If you plan to purchase an OLED for such purposes factor in a max 5 year lifespan before the burn-in becomes unacceptable.
All users claiming no burn-in issues are using random data most of the time (gaming/video) and have limited hours on the desktop. They aren't looking at spreadsheets 3000 hours per year.

 

[JediFragger]

They aren't looking at spreadsheets 3000 hours per year.

And let's hope these poor ******** don't have access to firearms!!

 

[sandys]

I would be considering it temporary anyway in the hope a nicer pixel ratio becomes available for ~46-48inch screens, 4k is not really enough, 8k a bit much, want something in the 110-120ppi range really.

 

[Woodsta888]

I would be considering it temporary anyway in the hope a nicer pixel ratio becomes available for ~46-48inch screens, 4k is not really enough, 8k a bit much, want something in the 110-120ppi range really.

If you can 'notice' the pixel density. You are sat too close.

 

[sandys]

I like to do my designs on a big canvas in preference to multiscreens so yes I sit close, screen is 80cm away, its a big PC monitor I want not to sit back on a sofa and game, currently use a 43", it is acceptable would prefer higher pixel density. 5k would be ideal.

 

[Woodsta888]

Oh I see. As an artist I guess you do have a different perspective on what you need your panel to display satisfactory for your work. Hadn't thought about it like that.

 

[Richdog]

I would be using it for hours at a time also with static terminals and menus, particularly sitting as home all day working on it during lockdown, a screensaver may come in useful, but perhaps the screen saver is not even on long enough to reverse any possible damage if you are straight back on the dame static screens?

As I said, if you do not take breaks and can't use screensavers then this is not a reasonable or even sensible use case for an OLED so in your case it's better not to buy one.

 

[Dave2150]

The rtings live CNN test is most applicable to desktop/productivity use. For work you'd be using it for 8 hours+ per day, so look at the burn-in around 52 weeks for 3 years of use. If you plan to purchase an OLED for such purposes factor in a max 5 year lifespan before the burn-in becomes unacceptable.
All users claiming no burn-in issues are using random data most of the time (gaming/video) and have limited hours on the desktop. They aren't looking at spreadsheets 3000 hours per year.

This is not correct. The rtings live CNN test has ONLY been displaying CNN for those thousands of hours. NOTHING else. The results will differ drastically if the poster uses the TV for other content apart from the few hours of daily work on static screens.

I'm not saying burn in won't happen, but it definitely won't look as bad as the rtings 24/7 CNN panel.

Either way, these things are so much cheaper than the best high end gaming monitors out there that they don't have much competition.

 

[Howling]

This is not correct. The rtings live CNN test has ONLY been displaying CNN for those thousands of hours. NOTHING else. The results will differ drastically if the poster uses the TV for other content apart from the few hours of daily work on static screens.

I'm not saying burn in won't happen, but it definitely won't look as bad as the rtings 24/7 CNN panel.

Either way, these things are so much cheaper than the best high end gaming monitors out there that they don't have much competition.

The total duration of static content. LG has told us that they expect it to be cumulative, so static content which is present for 30 minutes twice a day is equivalent to one hour of static content once per day.

You're right, but also wrong. The statement from LG via rtings is that the effect is cumulative, so 8 hours total per day of static objects - even interspersed with other content - is still 8 hours of, for lack of a better term, damage. So 5 days of 8 hours per week for your 40 hour work week is 40 hours worth of burn-in damage done that week.... Now it seems from the rtings test that you're still pretty much looking into the thousands of hours for damage to be visible, so it's likely you could get away with it for a few years... And LG has actually made progress on the burn-in front from the 7 series to the current X series so it may or may not be a factor for most folk. I wouldn't like to risk spending £1500+ for "potentially" 2 years worth of use myself... That's why my C9 is strictly movies/tv/gaming

 

[[Death]]

Only thing that puts me off is burn in, with a lot of static bars on games I play it would be a nightmare , it’s a shame there isn’t such thing as a 43 - 49” ips 120Hz+ gsync monitor , even latest asus is va and suffers massively With motion blur

 

[Richdog]

You're right, but also wrong. The statement from LG via rtings is that the effect is cumulative, so 8 hours total per day of static objects - even interspersed with other content - is still 8 hours of, for lack of a better term, damage. So 5 days of 8 hours per week for your 40 hour work week is 40 hours worth of burn-in damage done that week.... Now it seems from the rtings test that you're still pretty much looking into the thousands of hours for damage to be visible, so it's likely you could get away with it for a few years... And LG has actually made progress on the burn-in front from the 7 series to the current X series so it may or may not be a factor for most folk. I wouldn't like to risk spending £1500+ for "potentially" 2 years worth of use myself... That's why my C9 is strictly movies/tv/gaming

It's a risk, but a negligible one nowadays in the majority of use case scenarios. Making it sound as though it is almost inevitable or that you will only get 1-2 years use out of it before burn in is based on speculation and not fact.

if you dont want ANY risk of burn in then don't buy an OLED... but don't spend time scaremongering for others when all f the evidence suggests that it is no longer a big issue..

 

[Azrael1]

You could just use the CX48 just for pure gaming PC and Consoles. Use another monitor for you day to day work and creativity - thats my plan.

 

[Bizarre]

Does anyone know the difference between the two 48 inch models being released? The CX6LB and CX5LC? I can't seem to find a difference between the two other than the latter is £100 cheaper.

The answer to this if anyone's interested is the CX6LB is an exclusive to a store I can't mention and apart from the obvious of it being £100 more expensive, the only other difference is it has a dark stand oppose to a silver one, which comes with the CX5LC. Not bad if you plan on wall mounting or don't actually mind it having a silver stand.

 

[Dave2150]

Only thing that puts me off is burn in, with a lot of static bars on games I play it would be a nightmare , it’s a shame there isn’t such thing as a 43 - 49” ips 120Hz+ gsync monitor , even latest asus is va and suffers massively With motion blur

If such monitors existed, they'd be plagued with backlight bleed, quality control issues and would be £2000-£3000. These OLEDS are comparatively 'cheap', so even if they do have a slight burnin in maybe 5-6 years, you've saved money and have had the pleasure of using the best possible monitor for those years.

 

[Howling]

It's a risk, but a negligible one nowadays in the majority of use case scenarios. Making it sound as though it is almost inevitable or that you will only get 1-2 years use out of it before burn in is based on speculation and not fact.

if you dont want ANY risk of burn in then don't buy an OLED... but don't spend time scaremongering for others when all f the evidence suggests that it is no longer a big issue..

Who's scaremongering? Who's ignoring evidence? I agree, majority of use cases won't have any issue - but 413x specifically stated photoshop or coding, the discussion is on productivity work.

The evidence from RTings suggests that burn in will start at ~4000hrs (week 30 - I'm ignoring the max brightness one as it's not typical). LG have stated they expect the damage to be cumulative. Using one for productivity for a 40 hour work week is almost 2000 hours per year, so you're looking at 2 years before you're likely to see the beginnings of burn in... This is evidence-based. No where did I state it was inevitable, I said it was a possibility - and one you have to consider if you're looking at OLED for a use that has static elements. I also qualified with the fact that LG have improved their burn in from the 7 series (what rtings tested on) and the current x series, so burn in probably takes longer but there's no long term study giving us tangible results to base estimates on.

 

[Dave2150]

Who's scaremongering? Who's ignoring evidence? I agree, majority of use cases won't have any issue - but 413x specifically stated photoshop or coding, the discussion is on productivity work.

The evidence from RTings suggests that burn in will start at ~4000hrs (week 30 - I'm ignoring the max brightness one as it's not typical). LG have stated they expect the damage to be cumulative. Using one for productivity for a 40 hour work week is almost 2000 hours per year, so you're looking at 2 years before you're likely to see the beginnings of burn in... This is evidence-based. No where did I state it was inevitable, I said it was a possibility - and one you have to consider if you're looking at OLED for a use that has static elements. I also qualified with the fact that LG have improved their burn in from the 7 series (what rtings tested on) and the current x series, so burn in probably takes longer but there's no long term study giving us tangible results to base estimates on.

Also bear in mind the OLEDS being tested at rtings are older models. Newer models (C9, and now the CX) have added protection to limit burn in.

 

[Howling]

I also qualified with the fact that LG have improved their burn in from the 7 series (what rtings tested on) and the current x series, so burn in probably takes longer but there's no long term study giving us tangible results to base estimates on.

Also bear in mind the OLEDS being tested at rtings are older models. Newer models (C9, and now the CX) have added protection to limit burn in.

Exactly.

 

[Azrael1]

Who's scaremongering? Who's ignoring evidence? I agree, majority of use cases won't have any issue - but 413x specifically stated photoshop or coding, the discussion is on productivity work.

The evidence from RTings suggests that burn in will start at ~4000hrs (week 30 - I'm ignoring the max brightness one as it's not typical). LG have stated they expect the damage to be cumulative. Using one for productivity for a 40 hour work week is almost 2000 hours per year, so you're looking at 2 years before you're likely to see the beginnings of burn in... This is evidence-based. No where did I state it was inevitable, I said it was a possibility - and one you have to consider if you're looking at OLED for a use that has static elements. I also qualified with the fact that LG have improved their burn in from the 7 series (what rtings tested on) and the current x series, so burn in probably takes longer but there's no long term study giving us tangible results to base estimates on.

I get about 1 - 8 hours gaming a week max ( family and work ) at the moment for the past year so that should equate to decades of use hehehe. This will just be for me as the kids have their own monitors and PC.