Keep in mind that this test is inherently unrealistic

I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily unrealistic.

They found burn-in with 700 hours of 16:9.

But how long should the monitor go before burning in?

3 years? In 1.5 years, 700 hours of 16:9 is only about 1.2 hours a day of 16:9 content which is not unrealistic in the slightest. Even double that is not unrealistic and burn-in in less than 1 year…

That’s certainly problematic.

This is exactly what happened to my monitor. Visible burn-in in 10 months, and 1.5 years on now it’s even worse.

Well I assume that the video output is not HDCP protected? Therefore it assumes you could be recording the hdmi signal or something.

On another note…

• Memory bandwidth is down. M2 Pro had 200GB/s, M3 Pro only has 150GB/s. M3 Max only has 400GB/s on the higher binned part.

• Just like the low-spec M3 14" has one fewer Thunderbolt port, it also doesn’t officially support Thunderbolt 4 (like M1/M2 before it)

• The M3 Pro loses the option for an 8TB SSD. Likely because it was a low volume part for that spec.

• The M3 Pro actually has more E-cores than the Max (6 vs 4). Interesting to see them take this away on a higher-specced part; seems like Intel wouldn’t do this

Didn’t they price cut the 4070?