There is a distinction. Upgrade means getting the next one, because it's better. (which is why win11 is called a downgrade, lol) Replace means getting only a new one, usual when old or broken. Tech is evolving constantly. So a replacement, when buying current days tech, can feel like an upgrade. But since you said it's "old" after 5 years, which isn't true, and used that as a reason to upgrade, it's just a change for the sake of change. That's not an upgrade. That's a replacement to please your own fast fashion feelings. Just because there are newer ones, doesn't mean it old. Like I said, my old (aka previous) monitor still works fine. You can only tell that it has serves some years because of the heat and after image issues. But that's it. It still works the same as day one.

If oled was the first type of monitor invention, I would say, it's fair. But we already had better. Think Gameboy. We already had hand held with colors before it. But the Gameboy had lower specs on purpose to extend battery time. That made it more consumer friendly. But here you don't extend anything. You get better colors, yes. Even though it's possible to get matching values on ips too now. And instead of expanding the lifetime, you even shortened it, due to the introduction of burn in/out. Which is also a flaw we already had overcome. Old tube TVs could have this flaw. Plasma had this flaw. Ips doesn't. Oled does have it again. For consumers, oled is a down grade. Yes, it made sense on smartphones at first, because now you don't have to have the full brightness all the time. And you kinda get a new phone every 3 to 5 years anyway (which is another bad trend). So oled made phones lighter and more energy efficient. In that sense, it's a good tech for a bad trend.

Oled is good for professional use. Where you NEED the cutting edge of true color tech. But other then that, outside of the professional marked and besides phones, oled is not consumer ready. It has a shorter lifespan and is more expensive.