For years, the OLED versus LCD debate seemed settled in advance. OLED promised spectacular image quality but carried the threat of burn-in, while LCD was considered a more reliable technology that was less fragile in the long term. A large-scale longevity study conducted by RTINGS has turned this view on its head. After nearly 18,000 hours of use per television, the equivalent of 10 years of domestic use, the findings are surprising…
A deliberately extreme longevity test
The study was carried out by RTINGS, a specialist product testing medium known for its standardized protocols and comparative measurements on TV sets. Their aim was to answer a simple question that is rarely seriously addressed by conventional tests: how long can a TV set reasonably be expected to last before it starts to show signs of weakness or breaks? To achieve this, they set up a large-scale longevity test, on over 100 TVs from different technologies and ranges (LCD and OLED, several backlight types, several brands), in order to observe trends rather than limit themselves to an isolated case.
The protocol was deliberately extreme to accelerate the appearance of defects. The TVs ran for around 18,000 hours, which corresponds to several years of continuous use, and is equivalent to around ten years of domestic use depending on viewing patterns. RTINGS ran the TVs for up to 20 hours a day, with regular on/off cycles and content designed to put the panels to the test, particularly in terms of image burning. An important point: only one unit per model was tested, which limits the statistical scope per brand or per reference, but allows us to highlight recurring failure mechanisms linked to the technologies used.
LCD: not so reliable?
The results for LCD TVs are without doubt the most surprising of the test. Contrary to the image of robust technology, they are the ones that suffered the greatest number of outright hardware failures. A significant proportion of the models tested suffered backlight failures, ranging from simple loss of uniformity to screens becoming completely unusable. Televisions equipped with edge-lit or direct-lit backlighting without local dimming were particularly hard hit, with almost 60% of them suffering partial or total failure during 18,000 hours of operation.
The problem lies not with the LCD panel itself, but with everything behind it. The heat generated by LED backlighting gradually degrades the internal components: plastic reflectors deform, optical layers peel off, LEDs stop working. And these LEDs are often wired in series or groups, meaning that a single failure can cause an entire zone, or even the entire TV set, to go dark. Even full-array and Mini-LED models, although better armed on paper, are not spared, with around a quarter of them affected by LED problems over time, proof that increased complexity also multiplies potential points of failure.
📒 Note from the expert
Edge-lit backlighting places LEDs on the edges of the screen, while direct-lit distributes them behind the entire panel. Both technologies offer global illumination, but without local dimming, they can't adjust brightness by zone. As a result, blacks are shallower, contrast is limited and light leaks can be visible, especially in dark scenes. This also leads to lower reliability, since LEDs, under uniform and continuous stress, are more exposed to premature failure, increasing the risk of breakdown over the long term.
OLED: gradual wear and tear rather than sudden failure
As for OLED panels, the results are more nuanced, but overall positive in terms of reliability. The test confirms a well-known fact: OLED is an organic technology, and therefore subject to wear and tear. Over 18,000 hours, certain sub-pixels, particularly the red ones, lose efficiency more rapidly, which can lead to slight color drift or a drop in overall brightness. In the protocol set up by RTINGS, deliberately designed to push displays to the limit, all OLED TVs ended up showing marking to varying degrees.
The major difference with LCD, however, lies in the nature of this deterioration. On the OLEDs tested, wear and tear was progressive and rarely synonymous with sudden hardware failure. Manufacturers’ in-built protection mechanisms, such as pixel shifting and standby compensation cycles, play a key role in spreading the wear and tear and avoiding localized defects too quickly. As a result, despite the marking observed under these extreme conditions, few OLEDs actually became unusable during the test, and overall they showed fewer critical failures than LCD TVs over time.
The most expensive TVs are not the most durable
One of the most striking findings of this study is the lack of a clear link between the price of a television and its longevity. Contrary to popular belief, paying more does not guarantee better reliability or a longer lifespan. In the test, some entry-level and mid-range models lasted the entire 18,000 hours without encountering any major problems, while much more expensive televisions broke down relatively early, sometimes after only a few thousand hours of intensive use.
This is largely due to the complexity of on-board technologies. Top-of-the-range models often incorporate more sophisticated systems – Mini-LED backlighting, denser electronics, advanced processing – which improve the picture but also multiply potential points of failure. Conversely, some simpler, less technically ambitious TVs feature more basic architectures that can, paradoxically, withstand the test of time better. Price is therefore primarily a reflection of performance and functionality, not necessarily of a TV’s ability to last longer.
Repairing a television: a real challenge
The study also highlights an often overlooked point: the difficulty, even economic absurdity, of repairing a modern television. In most cases, problems arise outside the warranty period, at a time when the cost of repair far exceeds the financial benefits of doing so. Replacing an LED backlight, for example, involves almost completely dismantling the device, with a high risk of damaging the screen, which alone accounts for a large part of the television’s price.
This situation is exacerbated by design choices that are hardly conducive to repairability. Many entry-level models use adhesive or double-sided foam to hold the panel in place, making access to internal components extremely delicate. Even on more expensive TVs, designed with screws or clips, interventions remain complex and not very accessible to the general public. In practice, repairing a TV is rarely a viable option, which explains why the majority of faulty units end up being replaced rather than refurbished.
📒 Note from the expert
There's an official indicator, the durability index, which identifies the easiest-to-repair TVs. It's a score out of 10: the higher it is, the easier maintenance and repairs are, thanks to better accessibility of components, availability of spare parts and a design more favorable to disassembly.
OLED still reigns supreme in the real world
The protocol implemented by RTINGS is deliberately extreme and does not reflect typical domestic use. Running a TV for up to 20 hours a day, with static content and repeated cycles, is intended to accelerate the appearance of faults, not to simulate everyday living. What’s more, only one unit per model was tested, preventing any absolute generalization by brand or reference. In reality, the majority of televisions, whatever the technology, remain reliable for many years without encountering any major problems.
That said, this study highlights a clear trend: the fear of burn-in on OLED is vastly overestimated for normal use. Yes, OLED wears out and can mark under extreme conditions, but this wear is gradual and rarely synonymous with sudden failure. LCD TVs, on the other hand, have proven to be statistically more fragile in terms of hardware, with sudden failures linked to the backlighting. In practice, therefore, for typical living-room use, it’ s more likely that an LCD will fail before an OLED becomes truly unusable due to marking.
At the end of this longevity test, the question is not which technology is the most reliable in absolute terms, but which is the best for the intended use. For classic living-room use, films, series, sports and video games, OLED appears to be a particularly coherent choice, with superior image quality, gradual wear and low burn-in risk under normal conditions. LCD, on the other hand, remains relevant for very static uses, such as continuous news channels, professional displays or PC monitors used for long hours on the same elements, not because it is mechanically more robust, but because it does not mark the image. Above all, this study reminds us that there is no such thing as a universal technology, and that the right choice depends above all on the way the TV will be used on a daily basis.
