But of course you are going to end up saying "Don't buy a Sony." because you've always been bias against Sony. Simple.

Good pick

Ridiculous conditions? Good job reading the test instead of just getting upset that the OLED is failing the rest.

Do you not read the things you link?

More Versatile Alternative

Sony X900E

If you're not very sensitive to input lag or if you simply play games more casually, the Sony X900E is a good alternative to the Vizio P Series. It offers a more versatile set of features to fit a more varied usage. It doesn't have quite as low an input lag as the P Series with standard video games, but it doesn't suffer from higher latencies with HDR games, making it better suited for those looking to invest in an HDR capable console in the near future.


Sometimes I get hooked on a game for a long time. Like Elite Damgerous 9 months continuously, game running for many hours a day, in the background while doing other stuff. Same with racing games. Now I leave GT Sport on with the timer countdown, do the occasional sport race when it's up then it sits idle again for 20 minutes or more with the Tag Heuer logo right in the middle. Do I want to worry about switching inputs frequently for a small gain in image quality that might not even last over the lifetime of the tv? Would you recommend it to people playing the same online games year round for hours every night?

I'm sure damage won't be as fast or extreme as that test shows. However what they prove is that the tv shows wear from day one. All you can do is make sure to distribute that wear evenly. Yet image quality is still slowly degrading from day 1. As a living room tv that sees over 10 hours a day of use and is expected to be used for 10 years, that doesn't sound all that great. LED maintains proper white balance during it's lifespan, and although LG claims OLED can now match the 100,000 hour lifespan of LCD, this test shows that its clearly showing wear much faster than LCD.

What are you even trying to say here? These conditions are nothing like what any sane person would put their OLED through...

Throughout this thread all you've done is vent bile on OLED & owners thereof - it's like it makes you feel good or something...

Your views are so imbalanced that even though it is pointed out to you that on the very same page you link to, the outlet actually recommend OLED as the best TV for gaming - that all you can do is immediately aim an unfounded statement that they don't understand the test... amazing! You could have actually, you know - engaged with his actual point...

I've witnessed plenty of rabid fanboyism of console manufacturers but TV technology - really...?

I can understand that you have an issue with the technology - fair enough, there are definitely pros & cons, but go back and read your comments and more importantly note the tone of them - there's something else going on there...

Half of the logos that are burnt-in had run 2 hours on, 3.5 hours off. The VA and IPS running alongside the TV had no issue not burning in with even the torture tests, but the OLED can't even handle the gaming test.

Not only that, but the lower brightness is supposed to reduce burn-in, and it's been running with pixel shift active. OLED was given every opportunity to pass at least the standard 50% opacity test (10 minutes on, 2 minutes off), but it didn't.

Just as a side note, expect a heavy drop in gaming score for the OLEDs next month when they add Burn-in to the scoring process (that is the point of this test, after all-time to deduce the difference between burn-in on different panel technologies).

I bought mine in october of last year. The Sony XBR-X800D.  But if I was to buy one right now, based on a similar budget I allowed myself to spend last year, I'd most likely go for this:

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/sony/x900e

Which is offered in the 49", 55", 65" and 75" brackets.

As for the PS4 Pro upgrade being worthwhile or not, I'd say it depends on the games you play. Horizon, GTS and FF XV, three games I play, all look phenomenal in Pro mode. Especially Horizon, with its unmatched use of 4k checkerboard, and a HDR implementation second only to GTS.

I see quite a difference between 1080p games and games that have a resolution boost via their Pro patch. And I wish all games would have that kind of added picture quality. I play Persona 5 right now, and while it still looks quite good thanks to its bombastic visual style, there are a lot of jaggies. 

The Pro isn't a game changer, and isn't necessary depending on your gaming needs, but I do enjoy the added picture fidelity as well as the performance boost it provides for some games. There are more and more games making use of the added horsepower of the Pro, and with The Last of Us 2 coming out eventually, I'll be set to enjoy it the way it was meant to be experienced.

Already posted above :

Stores are never a good place to look at pitcture quality. The rooms are horrible lighting, the TV's are set on a setting that is not one you would want at home, ect.

Responsible use? You do realize gaming consoles have settings that do some sort of flicker so often to prevent any IR burn in. MY Xbox asked about this pretty sure when set it up. Also the game mode screen setting on the tv does the same. I've not onced fussed over my TV since I had it and have had no burn in. Whatever TV these days is better than the gen 1 plasmas for burn in. Hell even the most latest plasmas had practically already fixed their burn in.

Feel like anyone getting burn in are those that have their desktop on their screen all day every day.