Best Gaming Monitors

It’s getting harder to buy a gaming monitor without adaptive refresh but if you’re OK with just 144Hz, there are some great deals available. We know that G-Sync adds around $200 to the price and even FreeSync monitors are sold at a premium. When framerates are high, tearing is less evident and the action becomes very smooth and fluid. While we recommend adaptive refresh for any new gaming monitor purchase, you can still have a great playing experience with one of these budget screens.

MORE: Best Deals

Best High Refresh Rate Monitors

3/7/17 Update: added Asus ROG Swift PG279Q (Recommended award), removed BenQ XL2430T & BenQ XL2720Z.

MORE: How We Test Monitors

MORE: How To Choose A Monitor

MORE: All Monitor Content

Best 24-Inch High Refresh Rate Gaming Monitors

MORE: Best Builds

MORE: Best Cases

MORE: Best Cooling


Best 27-Inch High Refresh Rate Gaming Monitor

MORE: Best Graphics

MORE: Best Gaming Laptops

MORE: Best Memory

MORE: Best Motherboards

Best 35-Inch High Refresh Rate Gaming Monitor

MORE: Best Power Supplies


MORE: Best Virtual Reality Headsets

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • Gen Patton
    Has anyone looked at Viotek 32" monitor? I a revew on youtube seems to be ok? Thoughts??
  • BaRoMeTrIc
    Viotek is a crapshoot, i bought their 32 inch curved 1440p monitor and the colors were horrendous, after a RMA and a few days of playing with the settings on the second one i was pleased, and it overclocked well. So if youre patient and dont settle for a less than perfect one, go ahead and get a Viotek
  • Gen Patton
    Ok thanks, I found the Aoc Argon 27" or the 32" monitor and I am saving for that one it's $799.00 with tax $815.00 the 27" monitor is $699. the reason why?? Gsync I own a 980tisc2.0 which has gsync aand I want to take full advantage of the Gsync. So I will wait till I have either $815, or $710.00
  • Trace_5
    I just wanted to say that this you - tube channel is plagiarizing your content, I noticed it when watching a review on the Philips bdm3720. I have read Mr. Eberle review in detail and this youtube video is reading it word for word and there seems to be no citation of their sources. Here is a copy of the link. At least I believe everyone should publicly shame the content creator of the channel
  • Rekta1981
    PB328Q or PB278Q is your best its expensive but normally Asus is pretty good quality
  • oxford373
    I've been reading since a long time and I don’t recall any website talking about this and apparently 99% of people don’t know the fact that the actual size of the display changes with the aspect ratio, so for example 34 inch 21:9 ultra wide display equals 31.5 16:9, we are using the diagonal length as the size of the display which is accurate in the old days when there was only one aspect ratio which was 4:3 or when you're comparing displays of the same aspect ratio, I wanted to be as comprehensive as possible so I decided to explain this by taking rectangles all of them have the same actual size so when you multiply the length and the width you're gonna get 8, and each one have different aspect ratio (dimensions), and you're gonna notice the wider the rectangle the longer the diameter of the rectangle gets.
    Aspect ratio 1:1 Length:2.82 Width:2.82 Diameter:4
    AR 5:4 L:3.16 W:2.53 D:4.048
    AR 4:3 L:3.266 W2.45 D:4.0825
    AR 16:10 L:3.577 W:2.236 D:4.219
    AR 16:9 L:3.26 W2.121 D:4.326
    AR 18:9 L:4 W:2 D:4.5
    AR 21:9 L:4.3205 W1.85 D:4.7
    AR 32:9 L:5.333 W:1.5 D:5.54
    Like I said all these rectangles got the same exact size if you multiply length and width you're gonna get 8, which is the accurate way to measure the size of rectangles(displays), but as you could notice the diameter which is used to indicate the size of the display changes with aspect ratio. So a 4:3 display with 4.1 inch size display equals 4.7 inch 21:9, I'll mention few more realistic examples, 5:4 19" display with resolution 1280X1024 equals 20.3 16:9 display, 29" old CRT TV equals 30.73 16:9 TV, and 27" 16:9 equals 29.3 21:9, 31.5 display 16:9 equals 34.2, 21:9, 35" 16:9 equals 38" 21:9, 6.2 inch phone 18.5:9 equals 5.95 inch 16:9, 6" 18:9 equals 16:9 5.8 so these phones looks smaller not just because they are bezel less but because the actual size of the display is smaller as well, and finally double full HD 49" 32:9 equals 38" 16:9 displays.
    I also want to mention since the size of the display is measured by the diameter of the display that when you double the size of the display the actual size double 4 times for example 8" display is actually 4 times bigger than 4" display, the same goes for the way we measures pixel density which measured by pixel per inch AKA PPI so 200 PPI display has 4 times more pixels than 100 PPI display, How do we calculate PPI? We use Pythagorean equation of triangles which is length^2+width^2=diameter^2
    So for example if you want to measure the pixel density of display FHD 27" 1920^2+1080^2=4852800 then you get the root of that number to get the diameter pixels 4852800^0.5=2202.9 then divide that number to the diameter of the display which is in this case is 27 so 2202.9/27=81.5 PPI, a 4k 27" which got 4 times more pixels has 163 PPI.
    I didn’t want turn tech site into math class but after double full HD (32:9) displays came out and apparently most people were getting the wrong idea that's when I decided to write this.
  • joedavies87
    Will the Samsung C32HG70 and/or C27HG70 be reviewed soon?
  • turbotails23
    Are there any plans to make a Hi-Res monitor list?
  • fooliuskoolius
    Is the AOC G2460PF the same as the AOC G2460PQU except for freesync? Because the german Amazon does not have the PQU.

    Is the AOC G2460PQU still as good? It is about three years old. What about for example the LG 24FGM-79G? It's from 2017 and about the same price(at least in germany).
    Was there any progress in this area or is it safe to assume that a three year olds monitor can compete with a new one?
    The Acer Predator XB271HK price link is busted and is linking to a combo pack with a GTX1060 instead of just the monitor itself
  • RCPG
    The recently added AOC AG251FZ is not well inserted in the table. Everything's out of place.
  • sunny420
    "Will the Samsung C32HG70 and/or C27HG70 be reviewed soon?"

    There is a review of the C27HG70 at
  • prabhanjan13
    Its a great website I have came across today. You guys have done quite huge research about the products. I have received what I was searching for. Thanks again. Keep posting such awesome articles.
  • Sam Hain
    I bought the ASUS PG278QR in Dec. 2017 as my 1st leap into REAL 1440p gaming... Let me explain. The monitor it was replacing was the ASUS VG278HE 27" 1080p 144Hz 3D TN panel. Well, after 10 days of use, tinkering and gaming I came to the conclusion that for strictly gaming, the PG278QR was superior to the VG278HE, no question. I had been using DSR 1440p-mode on the VG278HE for gaming only and was fairly close to the real thing but not quite as sharp.

    Going back to the PG278QR... For web-browsing and vid-streaming, it was terrible. Blacks would appear as dark red and/or blocky black/grey areas. And the screen coating. Wow! Wayyyy too thick for my liking. It made the appearance of swirls that almost appeared like pixels of white/light backgrounds when on the desktop or web-browsing. After researching, found this to apparently be an ASUS manufacturing process, not an actual defect. Unfortunate.

    So, I bought an AOC AGON AG271QG 27" IPS 1440p G-Sync panel as a direct head-to-head comparo to the PG278QR (as I still had time to return it) to see how/if any differences I could note between them and decide which would be the keeper. Viewing angles... Not so much of an issue for me, as I sit directly in front of my monitor.

    Long story shortened... The AOC had much better contrast/no clouding/dark seen issues, no screen coating issues (desktop or web-browsing swirl artifacting) and actually appeared/felt like better gaming response which is rather odd as an IPS has a slightly higher ms response time as compared to a TN.

    The AOC ended up staying. No backlight bleed or glow issues noted either, which is a blessing. I steered clear of the ASUS PG279Q because of the glaring customer complaints of excessive bleed and glow problems and also tends to be amongst the higher priced 27" 1440p IPS G-Sync on the market; not worth the IPS/RMA lottery IMO.

    I also went with current panel tech vs. forthcoming HDR monitors, as Windows is not quite there yet with HDR support being spot-on and game title-flow with HDR support will be slow-rolling too. Perhaps within the next three to five years HDR will be "common-place" for monitor tech, who knows.
  • Codex77
    You haven't included the monitor, by Asus, that is usually ranked number one, when it comes to Gsync monitors. Therefore I'm not taking this article too seriously. Are you getting kickbacks from Acer? Why the exclusion?
  • test_purch1
    Test Automation comment 1527252869960