X

The Best Monitors to Buy in 2025

Alienware, HP, Apple and more hit our list of the best monitors CNET has tested, from gaming to portable to general purpose.

Article updated on 

Our Experts

Headshot of Lori Grunin
Written by  Lori Grunin
Our expert, award-winning staff selects the products we cover and rigorously researches and tests our top picks. If you buy through our links, we may get a commission.
Headshot of Lori Grunin
Lori Grunin Senior Editor / Advice
I've been reviewing hardware and software, devising testing methodology and handed out buying advice for what seems like forever; I'm currently absorbed by computers and gaming hardware, but previously spent many years concentrating on cameras. I've also volunteered with a cat rescue for over 15 years doing adoptions, designing marketing materials, managing volunteers and, of course, photographing cats.
Expertise Photography | PCs and laptops | Gaming and gaming accessories

Factors to consider

Size

You're most likely best off with a 27- or 32-inch flat screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio or a 34-inch curved with a 21:9 aspect ratio.

Resolution

Recommended resolution depends upon the screen size, but you're always better off with the maximum you can afford. I'd say a minimum of 1440p for 27-inch, 4K for 32-inch or larger and at least 1440p for 21:9.

Screen type

OLED or QD-OLED generally have the best contrast, color and pixel refresh speeds, although they may have some artifacts on text. IPS is the best alternative.

Color

The bigger the color gamut the screen covers the better. At a minimum, you want 100% sRGB, but 90% or higher P3 (also known as DCI-P3) is best, as it delivers more colors. Look for specific gamut coverage percentages rather than terms like "1 billion colors," which are essentially meaningless.

Brightness and HDR

In order to produce a decent image that looks like you expect HDR to look, you want the monitor to hit a peak brightness of 600 nits in HDR mode -- you might be able to get away with lower for OLED, but I still would recommend less than 500 nits -- and it's fine if the peak is lower in the standard range, though you still don't really want it lower than 300 for a desktop monitor.

Ports and connectors

They should match whatever you've got on your graphics card or laptop ports, and if you plan to connect via USB-C make sure the monitor's ports support video for it.

Price

Unless you can't afford it, at least $300 (full price, not discounted) for a current-generation model, closer to $600 minimum for OLED and/or decent HDR.

vs

Compare
Back to selection

Monitor preferences can vary a bit, regardless of how objective your testing is. For instance, I prioritize color accuracy and connection locations over sleek curves; you may feel the opposite. And while expensive monitors aren't necessarily better than cheaper ones, you usually have to spend more or make compromises, especially for specialized displays used for color work or gaming. Throw in the long sales life of monitors -- you'll find years-old monitors for sale, sometimes for great prices but sometimes not -- and even I scratch my head sometimes about whether a new model is worth it, how to winnow down the selection, and even how to figure out which model I'm looking at on retail sites. I hope this helps.

Which is the best monitor overall?

I've been testing imaging and graphics products for decades, and when it comes to monitors my favorite overall at the moment are QD-OLEDs, because they're so flexible. My top pick is the LG Ultragear 32GS95UE, a 32-inch, 4K QD-OLED with many of the capabilities I expect for both gaming and creating. There's dual refresh rate support (240Hz at 4K and 480Hz in 1080p), granular control over the settings, a lot of color tools for creators and excellent built-in speakers for your general-purpose needs. It's pretty expensive but not outrageous for a high-end monitor. A bigger screen but for a lot less is Innocn's 40-inch 40C1R at $450. It's not great but it's good enough all around -- especially if you can find it when the price dips. If you need advice on whether a particular type of monitor is right for you, there are some answers to common questions at the bottom of the list and a lot more guidance available in our general monitor and gaming monitor buying guides. You can also find some related buying advice for finding the best laptop (for Windows users or MacBook seekers), best gaming laptop or using an iPad as an external display

Read more:

Best monitor overall

Pros

  • Excellent display quality for gaming, including 4K/240Hz and 1080p/480Hz modes
  • Great speakers
  • Free LG Calibration Studio software (to create/update built-in profiles)
  • A ton of settings

Cons

  • Controller utility doesn't have many of the settings that are in the OSD
  • No DisplayPort 2.1
  • So many settings it's hard to keep track of them
  • Some artifacts on small text
  • No USB-C

It's expensive, but the 4K QD-OLED Ultragear 32GS95UE has a great balance of features, design and performance. It's got excellent display quality -- all the benefits of QD-OLED, including true blacks for high contrast, full P3 gamut coverage, good color accuracy and fast pixel refresh. LG throws in a ton of panel features, such as 240Hz/480Hz dual-refresh rate support (although 480Hz is only in 1080p), built-in color profiles that are updateable via LG's software and an optional color calibrator, almost over-granular control over display settings and more.

In addition, the monitor has terrific integrated under-screen speakers that are significantly better than those you typically find in any monitor. They're loud enough to be usable (and definitely louder than the usual pair of dinky 2W drivers), and are definitely up to ambient audio gameplay, music and movies; the drawback to the design is that, off-angle, the sound gets a bit muffled.

It's my top pick at the moment, but that's because it offers a good balance, not because it's flawless. It has quite a few flaws -- for a monitor in its price class -- including no DisplayPort 2.1 support, no USB-C (for either video input or power delivery) and artifacts on small text that may be a deal-killer for some people. The stand is pretty standard, and while sturdy, it feels a bit plasticky.

My test measurements showed decent but not stellar accuracy out of the box -- not sufficient for color-critical work, at least. Standard white points are generally around 6300K, gamma 2.2-2.3 and brightness is about 265 by default but can hit as high as 400 nits in SDR. Accuracy averages under 3 Delta e 2000, but you can probably improve it with a calibration tune-up. HDR peak brightness hovers around 650 nits for a 10% window -- that's with peak brightness set to low but which has the best tone-mapping curve -- but you can push it to over 1,200 nits in a 1% window if you crank everything. You really don't want to.

The display is nominally priced at $1,400, and I don't know that I'd pay that much for it. It's relatively new and still has dropped to as low as $1,000 with discounts, so if you can find it for that or less it's a good deal.

 ... Show more

Best portable monitor

Pros

  • Solid performance, features for the price
  • Versatile built-in stand

Cons

  • Brightness short of rated specs
  • Don't bother with HDR

From its 16-inch size to its versatile kickstand to its slim, lightweight build, the Z1RC is impressive for its price. The 2,560x1,600 resolution helps make everything sharp at this size, and it's exceptionally colorful, covering as much as 94% of the DCI-P3 color space and completely covering the sRGB color space. It’s not the brightest display, but at over 360 nits, it's impressive for a portable monitor, and combined with an anti-glare finish, it's easy to see in most conditions.

The Z1RC is pretty flexible with how you set it up, too. It has two USB-C ports and can run off a single-cable connection with a compatible device. Its second port is handy if you need auxiliary power or when you need broader compatibility with its mini HDMI input. A built-in kickstand also makes it easy to prop the monitor up horizontally and vertically. Of the portable monitors I’ve tested recently, the Arzopa Z1RC leads the way in many respects, and the fact that it’s also one of the most affordable options cements its place as a leading option.

 ... Show more

Best budget big-screen monitor

Pros

  • Nice and roomy
  • Generally solid performance for the money
  • Includes VESA mounting hardware

Cons

  • Minimally HDR
  • Action-gaming can have motion blur
  • Somewhat low resolution for its size
  • Little in the way of documentation

The 40-inch flatscreen Innocn trades some excellence for value, making it a solid general-purpose monitor if you need a big 'un for less and are OK with above average, but not best-in-class, gaming or color-critical accuracy. Plus, it ships with VESA mounting hardware in the box, which is convenient if you want to mount it on a wall or an arm, and unlike a lot of "value" competitors, it has a USB-C connection with 90-watt power delivery.

Like many big-for-less displays, the Innocn has somewhat low resolution for its size -- 3,440x1,440 pixels -- but if you normally scale your view, then it should suit. Gaming is solid, but if you play games with really fast moving action, the motion artifacts may bother you. It does handle 144Hz (DP) and 100Hz (HDMI) refresh rates, though. And it has a lot of features that are either minimally effective or undocumented.

Read our Innocn 40C1R review.

 ... Show more

A last-gen favorite for gaming

Pros

  • Great gaming performance and quality
  • Excellent color and tonal accuracy, notably in the dark shadow areas
  • Nice set of controls
  • Three-year warranty against burn-in

Cons

  • Radiates some heat through the screen
  • Annoying connector arrangement and cable management

The combination of OLED with Samsung's Quantum Dot color technology makes this Alienware 34-inch a standout. With great gaming performance and quality, terrific color and tonal accuracy (notably in the dark shadow areas, where OLED is weak), true HDR support, a USB hub, a solid set of controls and an above-average three-year warranty against burn-in, it really is hard to beat. It's not perfect: It doesn't have speakers, though the ones built into monitors tend to be pretty lame, and I'm not thrilled with the design of the connector layout and cable management, to mention a couple nitpicks. But it's certainly a top all-around choice.

In September 2023, Alienware announced a followup model, the AW3423DWF, which is slightly less expensive and essentially the same panel, but instead of G-Sync, it supports FreeSync Pro and VESA Adaptive-Sync, two DP connectors and one HDMI versus the opposite on the older model and 120Hz VRR when hooked up to a console. There might be some other tweaks since it loses the extra overhead of the G-Sync silicon (for instance, it supposedly can mount closer to a wall with a VESA mount).

Read our Alienware 34 QD-OLED (AW3423DW) review.

 ... Show more

Best monitor for the all-Mac creator

Pros

  • Excellent color accuracy and Apple-standard color profiles
  • Good speaker system for a monitor

Cons

  • No physical controls
  • No HDR
  • Meh Windows compatibility
  • Height adjustable stand is extra cost and neither choice allows swiveling or rotation
  • Only a single input connection
  • No easy-access ports

Pricey but pretty -- with excellent color accuracy and reference profiles plus a good, six-speaker audio system -- the Apple Studio Display gives Mac ecosystem fans exactly what one expects from Apple. 

That includes some of the downsides as well, such as no physical controls, no HDR, extra cost for a stand that lets you adjust the height (with no swivel or rotation), a single input connection and the three USB-C ports on the back rather than easily accessible.

Read our Apple Studio Display review.

 ... Show more

Other notable monitors we tested

Sony InZone M9 II ($798) This PlayStation-optimized monitor -- though it's not from Sony's PlayStation division -- is a great HDR experience (DisplayHDR 600 with local dimming) and works as advertised with the PS5. With the update, Sony fixed one of my biggest pet peeves, the horrible stand.

Alienware AW3225QF ($1,000): OLED screens tend to be glossy, which a lot of people like; colors pop more and they tend to look a little slicker. If you're in front of the screen for hours or there's particularly reflective stuff behind you (like a window, for example) your eyes and brain will thank you for a less reflective screen. The Alienware AW3225QF's fits the bill.

HP Omen 27QS ($220): This is a solid 1440p budget model -- pretty low-end for gaming but OK for general use -- but it's only worth the money if you can find it on sale.

Show more

Factors to consider

The trick to finding the right general-purpose monitor is getting sufficient display area, contrast, color and features (most importantly, connections) at an affordable price without sacrificing too much elsewhere. Here's my advice on what to consider to get the most for your money.

Size

All else being equal, if you've got the space and budget, bigger is almost always better. Screen size labeling is based on the diagonal measurement: That made it easy to compare monitor sizes when almost every screen had the same aspect ratio -- essentially the proportions of the screen rectangle, which is the ratio of horizontal to vertical pixels. Wide and ultrawide screens on desktops and newer ratios on laptops (such as 3:2 or 16:10) make cross-size comparisons a little more difficult. You may need to factor in the aspect ratios your favorite games support. If they only offer 16:9 options, configuring them for a widescreen 21:9, 24:10 or 32:9 monitor can be annoying and frustrating; you may also be able to save some money.

If you remember your geometry and algebra, you can calculate the width and height of the display if you also know the aspect ratio. (Because width/height = aspect ratio and width² + height² = diagonal²) The further from 1:1 the aspect ratio is, the wider the screen and more of it will be out to the sides -- and therefore in your peripheral vision if you're sitting close. It will also let you figure out the physical dimensions of the screen, most notably the width, to ensure it will fit in the allotted space.

DPI Calculator can do the math for you, but keep in mind that the numbers only represent the panel size, not the size of the display, which includes bezels and the mount. Nor does it take into account curved displays, which tend to have smaller horizontal dimensions than their flat-screen equivalent.

Resolution

Resolution, the number of vertical by horizontal pixels that comprise the image, is inextricable from screen size when you're choosing a monitor. What you really want to optimize is pixel density, the number of pixels per inch the screen can display, because that's what primarily determines how sharp the screen looks as well as how big elements of the interface, such as icons and text, can appear. If you're gaming with a controller at distances further than you'd be sitting at a desk, it can be critical. For instance, I've discovered that I can't read the text well enough to even make it through a tutorial in 1440p on a 32-inch monitor from more than about 4 feet away.

Standard resolutions with a 16:9 aspect ratio include 4K UHD (3,840x2,160 pixels), QHD (Quad HD, 2,560x1,440 pixels) and FHD (Full HD, 1,920x1,080 pixels): You're better off looking at the numbers than the alphabet soup because when you get to variations like UWQHD they can get mind-bogglingly ambiguous. When you see references to "1080p" or "1440p," it's shorthand for the vertical resolution. Examples of widescreen resolutions, which you'll tend to see in 34-inch and larger curved displays, include 3,440x1,440 pixels (21:9) and 5,120x1,440 pixels (32:9).

On a 27-inch display, 1,920x1,080 has a pixel density of 81.59 ppi. On a 24-inch display, 1080p works out to 91.79 ppi. Because a higher density is better (up to a point), FHD will look better on the smaller screen. This also depends on your vision: For me, too low a resolution and I can see the pixel grid and at slightly better than that I see nothing but jaggies on small serif type. So "optimal" really depends on what you're looking at and personal preference. My preference for working, highly detailed sims, games with a lot of text and so on is at least 100ppi; if you're moving so fast there's no time to stop and shoot the flowers, you can probably drop to as low as 90ppi. Once again, the DPI Calculator can do the math for you. (A related spec is dot pitch, the size of the space between the center of the pixels, which is just the inverse of pixel density. For that, smaller is better.)

Because of the way Windows works (and MacOS, too), you're always better off with the highest resolution possible: You can always change the settings to make things that are too small on a high-res screen larger and change settings to increase frame rates, but you can't make things that are too large on a low-res screen bigger.

Screen type

OLED or QD-OLED generally have the best contrast, color and pixel refresh speeds, although they may have some artifacts on text because OLED's one-pixel-one-color structure doesn't antialias (essentially blur the edges of the characters) as well as the filter array technologies (three-primaries-one-pixel-one backlight) used by other panel types. IPS screens with LED backlights are cheaper but still good -- IPS is the best alternative. If they use Samsung's Quantum Dot technology they have better color, and IPS Black panels have better contrast than straight IPS because of its deeper blacks.

Color

The bigger the color gamut the screen covers the better. At a minimum, you want 100% sRGB, but 90% or higher P3 (also known as DCI-P3) is best, as it delivers more colors. Look for specific gamut coverage percentages rather than terms like "1 billion colors," which are essentially meaningless because gamut coverage indicates which of the "billion" are included. If many of them fall outside the color space you need, they're pretty useless.

If your work or sideline requires accurate colors -- photo editing, video editing, 3D rendering and the like do if you need or want colors to display the way you shot or designed them -- keep in mind that there are various degrees of accuracy, and color management can be an extremely difficult exercise (in other words, if the colors look "wrong," don't automatically blame your monitor). The most popular measure of visible variance from the "correct" color is Delta E, and the most commonly touted spec is a Delta E of less than 2. That's great for generally accurate color, but that's also an average over a series of color patches. If you need what I call "color-critical accuracy," you really need a maximum Delta E of 2, as well as consistent gray scale. If you plan to output your work for printing, you may also need the monitor to cover more of the Adobe RGB gamut than today's typical sRGB or P3 -- sRGB is tiny and old, and P3 doesn't cover the cyan, yellow and magenta primaries you want for print.

Brightness and HDR

High dynamic range refers to scenes rendered with brighter highlights, greater shadow detail and a wider range of color, for a better-looking image. In order to produce a decent image that looks like you expect HDR to look, you want the monitor to hit a peak brightness of 600 nits (aka cd/m^2) in HDR mode -- you might be able to get away with lower for OLED, but I still would recommend less than 500 nits -- and it's fine if the peak is lower in the standard range, though you still don't really want it lower than 300 for a desktop monitor.

For gaming HDR, in contrast to TV HDR, it means more than just a prettier picture: The better you can see what's lurking in the bright and dark areas, the more likely you are to avoid danger and spot clues and looks a lot better than the black-level boost settings a monitor may have.

And in photo or video editing, even if you don't plan to export as HDR, the greater brightness range provides some useful latitude when you're color grading or adjusting exposure more precisely.

Ports and connectors

If you plan to connect to your computer via USB-C, make sure the monitor explicitly lists that it supports video out (aka alt mode or video over USB-C). Just because it has a USB-C port doesn't necessarily mean it can get video input that way. And if you want a real USB hub, you should make sure it includes the types of USB ports you need; for instance, a lot of high-end monitors (surprisingly) have an old USB-B 3.0 connector feeding the monitor's USB-A connections, which can be a pain or limiting.

Price

Unless you can't afford it, assume you'll pay at least $300 (full price, not discounted) for a current-generation model, closer to $600 minimum for OLED and/or decent HDR.

Show more

How we test monitors

All measurements were performed using Portrait Display's Calman Ultimate 2021 R4 and later software using a Calibrite ColorChecker Display Plus (formerly X-Rite i1Display Pro Plus) and a Murideo Six-G pattern generator for HDR testing where necessary, or the Client3 HDR patterns within Calman, where possible. How extensive our testing is depends on the capabilities of the monitor, the screen and backlight technology used, and the judgment of the reviewer.

On the most basic models we may stick with just brightness, contrast and color gamut, while on more capable displays we may run tests of most user-selectable modes for gaming or color-critical usage, uniformity and so on. For the color work, we may also run tests to verify how white point accuracy varies with brightness.

Color accuracy results reported in units of Delta E 2000 are based on Calman's standard Pantone patch set, plus the grayscale and skin tone patches. White points results are based on both the actual white value plus the correlated color temperature for the entire gray scale (21 patches, 0 to 100%) rounded down to the nearest 50K as long as there are no big variations. We also use Blur Bustersmotion tests to judge motion artifacts (such as ghosting) or refresh rate-related problems that can affect gaming.

See more details about how we test monitors.

Show more

Monitor FAQs

What screen size do I need?

Everything being equal, and if you've got the space and budget, bigger is almost always better. Screen size labeling is based on the length of the diagonal: That made it easy to compare when almost every screen had the same aspect ratio (the ratio of the number of horizontal pixels to vertical pixels). But wide and ultrawide screens on desktop and newer ratios on laptops (such as 3:2 or 16:10) make it a little more difficult.

If you remember your geometry and algebra, you can calculate the width and height of the display if you also know the aspect ratio (because width/height = aspect ratio and width² + height² = diagonal²). The further from 1:1 the aspect ratio is, the wider the screen and the more the sides will be out of your center of vision if you're up close. The calculation will also let you figure out the physical dimensions of the screen, most notably the width, to ensure it will fit in the allotted space. DPI Calculator can do the math for you.

Show more

Should I get two screens or one ultrawide?

This really depends on what you're doing. For instance, if you want a fast gaming monitor for play and a high-resolution display for work, it's a lot cheaper to get two than a single one that does both. Or if you need a color-accurate monitor for design but want a high-brightness one for gaming, it's also a lot cheaper to get two smaller ones -- I have two 27-inch models for that reason. But if you just need a ton of screen space, a single ultrawide might be simpler.

Show more

Need more guidance? We've got more detailed info on what to look for in a general-purpose monitor and more specifically what's important in a gaming monitor.