Does your monitor get damaged if you used the maximum refresh rate for it?

[mimiko857]

Hello I'm just really curious I just recently bought a 244Hz 21.5" Monitor 1080p , it's my first time having a monitor that is higher than 60hz.
Does using all of my refresh hertz reduce the monitor's life span or not?

Also Here's my basic pc specs.
intel i5 -11400
GTX 1660 Super 6gb
1TB Samsung ssd
16GB Hyperx ram 2666

[Supafly]

Edifier eredeti hozzászólása:

So I'm quite sure the higher Hz on monitors can affect burn in more because running something at 75 Hz vs 244 Hz is bound to have some effect.

I have 3 x 144hz displays. My oldest is a BenQ which is 11 years old and in use as a second display. Newest is my main and the other I gave to my nephew. Not one of them has screen burn in. Not even the oldest which is sat on windows desktop with various things loaded and nothing full screen. That means it has the taskbar visible on it 100% of the time. If I drag the taskbar to the top there is 0 burn in.

144hz != burn in. Your results is not a global result. If anything it highlights a flaw in a faulty product you brother has. Not because of the refresh rate. That only affects how frequently the image is refreshed.

Burn in is having the same image on the screen for prolonged periods of time. If you have 2 screens that are identical with the exception of refresh rates. One with a refresh of 1hz and another of 1000hz then have both screens showing the same image. Image is on the screen for the exact same length of time. doesn't atter wether image is refreshed 1 or 1000 times per x seconds. Same image would be visible for the same amount of time, thus no increased burn in . If burn in happened on one it'd could happen on the other.

[pauldiazberrio]

My monitor before this one suffered from a loss of one whole line of pixels. I still remember the persistant line of flickering green that ran along the middle of it. I replaced it with a new one, which I have been using for nearly eight years now. I have been running it for six years only in the 60hz range and now I dabble in the 100-144hz range. It's still going strong and showing no signs of wear or tear. 200 euros for a monitor is a good price. I am using my monitor at higher freqeuncies than standard and I'm not seeing any evidence that it'll burn out.

[Muppet among Puppets]

Edifier eredeti hozzászólása:

So I'm quite sure the higher Hz on monitors can affect burn in more because running something at 75 Hz vs 244 Hz is bound to have some effect.

You connect two assumptions with the word "because" here.

[Yamete]

Cathulhu eredeti hozzászólása:

Burn-in has nothing to do with refresh rate.

then why the burn happening? i want to buy sechand monitor but im really scared that, maybe a month after i bought it the burn will happen

[Muppet among Puppets]

Yamete eredeti hozzászólása:

Cathulhu eredeti hozzászólása:

Burn-in has nothing to do with refresh rate.

then why the burn happening? i want to buy sechand monitor but im really scared that, maybe a month after i bought it the burn will happen

Burn in would happen if you let it happen.
It does not appear later for someone else doing something before you got it..

Read about burn in "requirements" for the kind of monitor you would get.

[Supafly]

Yamete eredeti hozzászólása:

Cathulhu eredeti hozzászólása:

Burn-in has nothing to do with refresh rate.

then why the burn happening? i want to buy sechand monitor but im really scared that, maybe a month after i bought it the burn will happen

Maybe read the thread you just necro'd? 1 hz or 20000hz refrresh rate will mean the image is onscreen for x hz every 1 second. Thus refresh rate has no impact on burn in

[EL TOQUETÓN ESPINOZA]

It´s meant to work at that refresh rate, however, turning it to 60 in Windows and when you are not gaming is not a bad idea. It consumes less power and will make its life longer.

[Muppet among Puppets]

Ministerio de la Mujer eredeti hozzászólása:

It´s meant to work at that refresh rate, however, turning it to 60 in Windows and when you are not gaming is not a bad idea. It consumes less power and will make its life longer.

Technically, more energy.
But effectively not really.

At least for modern monitors. When they change the image its rather changing "a filter".
And thats only if the dot needs to be changed.
You could have 1000hz, if the image does not change nothing happens. That means, the refreshrate does not cause more energy.

The "image" a monitor produces is white light, all the time. That consumes the most energy. And you have "filters", that let from this white light spectrum only some through, or block it (black).

The life of the monitor is mostly determined by other parts than the filter. The real light source, that just shines, bad ones even flicker to simulate brightness changes.
Or the powersupply.

That the "filter", the "refreshrate" element lasts less long if the refreshrate is higher, you likely wont reach.

[Acer]

It's clear that running at higher frequency uses more power, so yes it does cause more stress on the monitor. However, if the monitor is rated at a certain frequency, then this is what it was designed for. Take that as you will. Now, my personal experience and research I've seen some early 144Hz monitors having issues after 5 years, in particular the expensive Asus XG32VQ. Modern monitors (last 5 years-ish), I haven't seen as many issues reported on the internet. With 60Hz monitors, no screen issues for 10 years+. As usual YMMV.