Tag:

Gaming

Front of Cherry XTRFY MX 3.1 on desk on with pink background
Product Reviews

Cherry XTRFY MX 3.1 review: an underwhelming mechanical gaming keyboard eclipsed by better value alternatives

by admin



Why you can trust TechRadar


We spend hours testing every product or service we review, so you can be sure you’re buying the best. Find out more about how we test.

Cherry XTRFY MX 3.1: one-minute review

The Cherry XTRFY MX 3.1 is a wired mechanical keyboard with the simple aim of delivering great gaming performance.

Its sleek appearance is achieved thanks to the low profile keycaps with their prominent indentations, and despite being made from ABS, they look and feel every bit as premium as their PBT counterparts.

What’s more, the very bright RGB lighting looks particularly striking on the white colorway. The metal chassis, however, looks less impressive, coming across a little cheap.

Fortunately, it feels more solid than it appears – as does the whole board for that matter, equaling what the best gaming keyboards have to offer. It’s reasonably heavy as a result, but not onerously so.

The detachable USB cable also feels premium. It’s braided which makes it more flexible, and it’s quite long, too, which makes it easier to route on various setups.

The software that attends the MX 3.1 is quite limited compared to those of other gaming keyboards, containing only a handful of shortcuts rebind options and a basic macro facility – and not much else besides. This will no doubt disappoint gamers after deep customization options.

To game with, the MX2A switches in the MX 3.1 are heavier than you might expect. They feel quite clicky with minimal dampening, which can make them feel a little harsh when hammering away at them.

This aspect isn’t helped by the short travel of the keys. Thankfully, those indentations on the keycaps are comfortable and secure, which makes them ideal for both gaming and typing.

I also appreciated the rounded back edge of the space bar, which softens the impact when you hit it. This is especially useful given the shallow angle of the layout: instead of fold-out feet, the MX 3.1 comes with two sets of screw-in pins with different heights. No matter which set I installed, the layout always seemed too flat for my liking. Combined with the thick body, this means the MX 3.1 can get uncomfortable after long sessions.

It’s priced slightly below what you might expect from a wired mechanical gaming keyboard, but in today’s market there are plenty of great value models offering more features and stronger performance for less.

(Image credit: Future)

  • Cherry XTRFY MX 3.1 (White) at Amazon for $94.99

Cherry XTRFY MX 3.1 review: price and availability

  • $129 (about £100 / AU$200)
  • Available now in three colorways
  • Slight below-average pricing

The MX 3.1 costs $129 (about £100 / AU$200) and is available now in black, white, and pink colorways, although the latter is currently only available in Asia.

This is a slightly-below average price for a full-size wired mechanical keyboard, but there are plenty of wired and even wireless alternatives that perform just as well, if not better, for less money.

Take the Roccat Magma, for instance, which is our pick as the best gaming keyboard for those on a budget. It may feature membrane rather than mechanical switches and exhibit less-than-stellar build quality, but its performance is sharp and accurate and has a miniscule price tag in comparison to the MX 3.1.

Even the wireless MonsGeek Fun60 Ultra is cheaper than the MX 3.1, albeit not by as much. This board supports both 2.4GHz and Bluetooth connections, and features TMR analog switches that allow for far greater customization. I also found it great to both game and type on.

Value: 3 / 5

Cherry XTRFY MX 3.1 review: specs

Swipe to scroll horizontally

Layout

Full size

Switch

Mechanical

Programmable keys

Yes

Dimensions

17.1 x 5.4 x 1.4 inches (435 x 138 x 35mm)

RGB or backlighting

Yes (customizable)

(Image credit: Future)

Cherry XTRFY MX 3.1 review: design and features

  • Solid and sturdy construction
  • No folding feet
  • Limited software

The MX 3.1 has a simple yet sleek design. The speckled metal chassis that frames the entire board features angular contours and sporadic holes, all of which add some interest. However, this frame ultimately looks a little cheap and harks back to a bygone era of gaudy gaming peripherals.

The very bright and vibrant RGB lighting, on the other hand, is striking yet tasteful. It certainly attracts plenty of attention, especially on the white model, which it complements rather well.

Build quality is very good as well, with the whole unit feeling quite sturdy and heavy, more so than perhaps it looks. That metal chassis is solid as you could wish for, and so too are the plastics, which means the MX 3.1 should stand the test of time.

The keycaps look elegant thanks to their low profile and deep indentations. Despite being made from ABS, they feel every bit as premium as PBT varieties. They feel super smoother under the finger tips, too.

(Image credit: Future)

Their overall size is quite small compared to those on other mechanical keyboards, which makes the whole of the MX 3.1 feel more compact. It’s a shame, however, that there’s no volume dial, with F-row shortcuts relied on for this function in its place.

Instead of foldable feet, the MX 3.1 comes with two sets of pins of different lengths that screw into the back end of the board to adjust the angle. While this method arguably offers a more secure footing, it’s a less sophisticated and more time-consuming solution.

What’s more, even the longer pins aren’t tall enough to create an angle I was entirely comfortable with. This issue is exacerbated by the thick chassis – and lack of wrist support – which meant my wrists had to bend upwards more than I would’ve liked.

The MX 3.1 comes with a long, braided USB cable, which makes it amenable to various setups and routing options. The central placement of the USB-C port also helps with these aspects.

The companion software for the MX 3.1, the Cherry Utility Software, is quite sparse compared to rival tools. Every key can be remapped to another, but there are only a handful of system and media shortcuts available to assign, while the macro creator is very basic. Those looking for more performance based tweaks will be disappointed.

Design & features: 3.5 / 5

Cherry XTRFY MX 3.1 review: performance

  • Switches heavier than expected
  • Good for typing
  • Considerate space bar design

The MX2A Silent Red linear switches are quite clicky with little dampening, which makes them feel harsh when hit hard. They’re also quite heavy to press, which is most noticeable when using the WASD keys for in-game movement. This resistance is somewhat surprising, given the short travel of the keys themselves.

This short travel makes the MX 3.1 great for typing on, though, as do the aforementioned keycap indentations, since they provide both security and feedback when touch typing. Their low profile also helps to compensate for the whole unit’s lack of tilt, allowing my fingers to stay relatively flat while dancing around the keys, which I find more comfortable.

Another aspect of the MX 3.1 I appreciated is the soft curve on the back edge of the space bar, as this cushions impacts with the thumb. It’s a shame this curve is confined to the center rather than extending along the entire edge, but I still appreciated its inclusion.

(Image credit: Future)

Performance: 3.5 / 5

Should I buy the Cherry XTRFY MX 3.1?

Swipe to scroll horizontallyGamakay TK75HE V2 Scorecard

Attributes

Notes

Rating

Value

It costs less than the average price for a mechanical keyboard, but there are cheaper alternatives with more features.

3 / 5

Design and features

The MX 3.1 is elegant, despite the somewhat dated design of the metal frame. It’s built to a surprisingly high standard, too, although the software is underwhelming.

3.5 / 5

Performance

The switches are heavier than you might expect, but typing is satisfying. The lack of angle can cause some ergonomic issues.

3.5 / 5

Overall

The MX 3.1 doesn’t do anything to set the gaming keyboard world alight. While it’s solid in some regards, it’s too expensive for what it offers.

3.5 / 5

Buy it if…

Don’t buy it if…

Cherry XTRFY MX 3.1 review: also consider

Swipe to scroll horizontallyHeader Cell – Column 0

Cherry XTRFY MX 3.1

MonsGeek FUN60 Ultra

Roccat Magma

Layout

Full size

60%

Full size

Switch

Mechanical

Analog (TMR magnetic)

Membrane

Programmable keys

Yes

Yes

Yes

Dimensions

17.1 x 5.4 x 1.4 inches (435 x 138 x 35mm)

11.5 x 4 x 1.1 inches (293 x 102.5 x 28.5mm)

17.8 x 6.2 x 1.5 inches (452 x 157 x 39mm)

RGB or backlighting

Yes (customizable)

Yes (customizable)

Yes (customizable)

How I tested the Cherry XTRFY MX 3.1

  • Tested for a week
  • Used for gaming and working
  • Extensive gaming keyboard experience

I tested the MX 3.1 for about a week, during which time I used it for gaming and working.

I played Counter-strike 2, which is a great test for keyboards given the demands it places on fast and its requirement of precise inputs. I also played games that make greater use of the entire layout, such as Abiotic Factor.

I’ve been PC gaming for over a decade, and during that time I’ve experienced a vast array of gaming keyboards. I’ve also tested a wide range of them, as well as other Cherry XTRFY products.

Cherry XTRFY MX 3.1: Price Comparison



Source link

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
9 Picks of the Best Gaming Mouse, Tested and Reviewed (2025)
Gaming Gear

9 Picks of the Best Gaming Mouse, Tested and Reviewed (2025)

by admin


Other Good Mice to Consider

NZXT Lift 2 Symm

Photograph: Eric Ravenscraft

NZXT Lift 2 Symm for $50: PC manufacturer NZXT has been venturing out into the peripherals market with impressive products for a company so relatively new to the game. The NZXT Lift 2 Symm is no exception. This mouse has a hollow interior and a base that uses minimal plastic. This gives it an ultra-lightweight feel, but avoids the odd feeling that other mice like the SteelSeries Aerox 3 give off by reducing the amount of plastic in the pieces that touch your hands. Combined with an 8,000-Hz polling rate, optical switches, and an excessively robust 26,000 dpi optical sensor, this mouse is more than capable of handling even the fastest games at a low price.

Logitech MX Master 3S for $120: The MX Master 3S isn’t a gaming mouse per se, but it’s also better at being a gaming mouse than many dedicated gaming mice. It features a few extra customizable buttons, plus a horizontal side scrolling wheel. It’s ridiculously comfortable. Logitech’s been making mice for years, and this mouse benefits from all that experience, with a smooth arc for your palm and a rest spot for your thumb. It even includes a button in that spot where your thumb naturally rests. This is the preferred daily mouse of many WIRED staffers. The one downside is that the 125-Hz polling rate is a bit low for competitive FPS games, but if you’re looking for something more solo, it’s hard to get more comfortable than this.

Logitech MX Anywhere 3S for $80: This a cheaper, compact mouse that can connect to up to three devices via Bluetooth, and gets 70 hours on a single three-hour charge. It doesn’t have as many fancy gaming-centric features, but if you just need a decent mouse and want to save a little money, this is a great option.

Logitech G203

Photograph: Logitech

Logitech G203 for $35: Budget gaming mice often forgo a lot of the conveniences and performance you get out of nicer models, but the Logitech G203 never feels like it’s lacking. The sensor has a lower maximum sensitivity than you’ll get out of a more expensive offering—8,000 dots per inch—so if you need that top-end sensitivity, you’ll want to look elsewhere, but it features six buttons, compatibility with Logitech’s G Hub software, and, most importantly, has RGB lighting. Those are all things you’d typically expect to pay more for.

Turtle Beach Burst II Air for $100: The Turtle Beach Burst II Air at times felt like it wasn’t even there. I’ve played with a lot of mice that cut out huge chunks of their plastic hull to reduce weight, but the Burst II Air feels incredibly light without all the gaping holes. The skates are so smooth I felt like I could push the mouse around by blowing on it. The USB-A wireless dongle fits inside a small compartment on the bottom, right next to a physical switch that swaps between 2.4 GHz and Bluetooth modes. Two customizable thumb buttons sit along the side, while a third button for cycling dpi sits farther down along the edge, which I found particularly interesting. Most mice put this button on the top of the mouse, where it can sometimes be accidentally pressed, but this spot is so convenient it makes me wonder why Turtle Beach is the first company I’ve seen place it here.

Logitech G Pro Wireless for $110: Logitech’s G Pro X series was designed with input from esports professionals. Lightning-fast response times and proper ergonomics ensure that the additional buttons are right where your fingers rest. The wireless receiver delivers 1-millisecond response times, so you won’t miss headshots due to lag. The buttons are satisfying and sturdy, with mechanically tensioned springs underneath both the left and right buttons, and separate key plates for accuracy. It lasts around 48 hours on a single charge, but if you want to completely forget about charging, get the wireless charging-mat bundle.

SteelSeries Aerox 9

Photograph: Eric Ravenscraft

SteelSeries Aerox 9 for $150: This has a large array of side buttons. Its shell also has a grid cutout pattern, which SteelSeries says helps reduce the weight of the mouse, but my roommate says it triggers her trypophobia, so your mileage may vary.

Razer Cobra Pro for $130: I am personally a fan of mice with a dozen extra buttons, but if you’d rather just have a little bit of extra power without being overwhelmed, the Razer Cobra Pro might be more your speed. It has two thumb buttons on the left side, as well as two dpi controls down the middle, all of which can be customized to your needs. While playing Overwatch 2, I like to use the dpi buttons to cycle between sensitivities for different heroes, but when I’m using it for work, I like that I can assign common shortcuts or macros that I need while getting things done.

Great Mousepads

One of the cheapest things you can do to upgrade your PC gaming experience is to invest in a high-quality mousepad. If you’re a mouse-and-keyboard gamer, having the right surface for your trusty little rodent can be super helpful. Not only do you have a nice little area of your desk cordoned off for mouse use, but you also get a surface designed to be as friction-free and slick as possible—so you’ll be as quick as possible.

Harber London Professional Leather Desk Mat

Photograph: Julian Chokkattu

Harber London Professional Leather Desk Mat for $193: Despite more than a year of use, this Harber London leather desk mat still looks exquisite. The pebbled leather is supple and has a nice texture, but your mouse will glide over it effortlessly. It comes in three sizes and three colors.

SteelSeries QcK Mouse Pad for $8: SteelSeries’ QcK mousepad is one of my all-time favorites. The medium size is perfect for most desks, even small ones. It’s well-made and doesn’t fray easily—cheaper mousepads often fray at the edges, which ruins the aesthetic a good mousepad can lend to a workstation.

Photograph: Grovemade

Grovemade Wool Felt Desk Pad for $70: This doesn’t seem like your usual gaming accessory, because it’s not. It’s a wool felt pad from Portland, Oregon, company Grovemade, and it’s large enough to fit a keyboard and a mouse with room to spare. It feels soft and plush under your wrists, and all of the gaming mice on this list just glide over its surface; it’s like they’re sliding on glass. It’s a big surprise, honestly. Not to mention, a felt desk pad adds an air of sophistication and style to any desk, without making it seem too uptight. The color looks amazing under RGB lighting in a dark room. It’s an easy and affordable way to inject some unique style into your work (and play) space.

Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting and exclusive subscriber content that’s too important to ignore. Subscribe Today.



Source link

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Dell S3225QC
Product Reviews

Dell S3225QC 32-inch 4K QD-OLED Monitor Review: Compelling gaming value

by admin



Why you can trust Tom’s Hardware


Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

When I write about a monitor’s gaming feel, I’m usually referring to its speed, smoothness, and response. But something I rarely see is a display with good integrated sound. The speakers in most panels are of similar quality to the beeper that tells you when the microwave is finished cooking. They are often tinny and distorted above polite volumes.

Dell has sought to remedy that with its S3225QC. This 32-inch OLED monitor brings a real soundbar with spatial audio to the table. I’m talking about five speakers with 25 watts of amplification and a user position sensor that focuses sound on the listener and creates a true sense of space and immersion. And it delivers a decent picture too with 4K resolution, 120 Hz, HDR10 and Dolby Vision, plus Adaptive-Sync and wide gamut color. It’s wrapped in a luxurious package that enhances any desktop or media room. Let’s take a look.

Dell S3225QC Specs

Swipe to scroll horizontally

Panel Type / Backlight

Quantum Dot Organic Light Emitting Diode (QD-OLED)

Screen Size / Aspect Ratio

32 inches / 16:9

Max Resolution and Refresh Rate

3840×2160 @ 120 Hz

Row 3 – Cell 0

FreeSync and G-Sync Compatible

Native Color Depth and Gamut

10-bit / DCI-P3+

Row 5 – Cell 0

HDR10, DisplayHDR 400

Row 6 – Cell 0

Dolby Vision

Response Time (GTG)

0.03ms

Brightness (mfr)

250 nits SDR

Row 9 – Cell 0

1,000 nits HDR (3% window)

Contrast

Unmeasurable

Speakers

5x 25w

Row 12 – Cell 0

Spatial Audio w/user position sensor

Video Inputs

1x HDMI 2.1

Row 14 – Cell 0

1x USB-C (DP 1.4 alt)

Audio

Integrated soundbar

USB 3.2

1x up, 2x down (type C)

Power Consumption

49.7w, brightness @ 200 nits

Panel Dimensions

WxHxD w/base

28.3 x 19.8-24.2 x 8.8 inches

(719 x 503-615 x 224mm)

Panel Thickness

2.8 inches (71mm)

Bezel Width

Top: 0.3 inch (8mm)

Row 21 – Cell 0

Sides: 0.4 inch (10mm)

Row 22 – Cell 0

Bottom: 2.2 inch (56mm)

Weight

22.1 pounds (10kg)

Warranty

3 years

Today’s best Dell S3225QC deals

  • Dell S3225QC (Blue OLED) at Amazon for $849.99

I’ll address the elephant in the room first. 120 Hz is a bit slower than typical gaming monitors. The best 4K gaming monitors typically start at 144 Hz, and lately, I’ve been reviewing 240 Hz models in a steady stream. The net effect is that the S3225QC shows a little motion blur and has slightly higher input lag than the competition. But for casual gaming and entertainment, the sound is on another level, as in, the others aren’t even close.

The sound bar is front and center with a two-inch wide fabric covering five speakers driven by 25 watts of amplification. In the middle is a sensor that tracks the user’s head position to keep the soundstage focused on the listener. It also makes sound seem to come from the sides and behind through phasing that adapts in real time. It’s a great alternative to headphones and, in my opinion, it’s more immersive.

The picture comes courtesy of a 32-inch Quantum Dot OLED panel with 4K 3840×2160 resolution, equating to a 140ppi pixel density. The QD layer delivers over 105% coverage of DCI-P3, putting it on par with other high-end QD-OLEDs. HDR10 is supported, but you also get Dolby Vision, which is still a rarity in the computer monitor genre. This standard embeds dynamic tone mapping in the content metadata, meaning it renders correctly on any display, regardless of its peak output. HDR10 has fixed value tone mapping, and that manifests as clipped highlight detail when the content’s peak values don’t match the display.

Color is very accurate with verified factory calibration data in the OSD. Dell saves a bit of paper and instead includes nine screens of test results unique to each S3225QC. Peak output is specified at 250 nits for SDR and 1,000 nits for HDR when measuring a 3% window. Variable brightness is only engaged for HDR content and is not an option in the OSD. The S3225QC carries VESA’s DisplayHDR 400 True Black certification.

While players of twitchy shooters may pause at the 120 Hz refresh rate, it is supported by Adaptive-Sync over HDMI. It has no issues with either FreeSync or G-Sync systems and keeps frame tears out of the equation at all refresh rates.

I mentioned luxury earlier, and the S3225QC is undoubtedly in that category. It features premium build quality, including a white stand and backing, with inputs hidden beneath a cover, and offers premium ergonomics. It’s high-end all the way, but the price is relatively low at $800. While that isn’t a trifle, it is less than similar offerings from HP, Dough, Asus, and Acer. It gives up some speed to those brands, but it more than trounces their audio quality. So, with your priorities in mind, let’s see how it tests.

Assembly and Accessories

Dell continues to ship its displays in recyclable packaging with molded pulp securely protecting the contents. The S3225QC comes in the usual three bits that assemble without the need for tools. If you plan to use an arm, there’s a 100mm VESA mount in the back with fasteners included. A small cover hides the input panel once you make your connections. The cable bundle is just a single USB-C and IEC for the internal power supply.

Product 360

Image 1 of 5

(Image credit: Dell)(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)(Image credit: Dell)(Image credit: Dell)(Image credit: Dell)

The S3225QC is a monitor that looks great from any angle. I’m partial to white displays, and this one makes thoughtful use of contrasting materials to achieve a high-end aesthetic. The front immediately draws the eye down to the fabric grill covering the sound bar with its central user position sensor and small Dell logo. A power LED glows at the lower right. The screen has a shiny front layer, which requires a little consideration of light sources to avoid reflection. The bezel is thin around the top and sides, measuring eight and ten millimeters, respectively.

The back is completely smooth and featureless, save for a small Dell logo at the top. The input panel is concealed beneath a snap-on cover and includes one HDMI 2.1 and a USB-C with DisplayPort 1.4 function. Another USB-C supports peripherals, and there’s a third one hidden in a pop-out bit on the bottom of the panel. See the above photo to find it.

The side view highlights the elegant white stand, which is anchored by a round piece that provides a 5/21-degree tilt, a 30-degree swivel, and 4.4 inches of height. There is no portrait mode. Movements are smooth and firm with no wobble or play. The base has sufficient size and weight to support the S3225QC’s 22-pound weight.

OSD Features

The S3225QC’s OSD appears when you press the joystick behind the panel’s lower right corner. It will be familiar to any users of Dell or Alienware monitors and is logically laid out with nearly every option required for image adjustment and convenience.

Image 1 of 10

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Brightness and Contrast get their own sub-menu with sliders that range from zero to 100. The input selector can be set to automatically detect incoming signals. In the Color menu, there are nine picture modes available. Standard is the default, and it is accurate and well-suited for gaming, video, or productivity. The Creator mode offers four color gamut choices if you don’t want to use the native setting, which covers around 105% of DCI-P3. I noted that DCI-P3 refers to the cinema standard with 2.6 gamma and a D63 white point, while Display P3 uses a 2.2 gamma with D65.

In Custom Color, you can adjust RGB gain and bias sliders, plus hue and saturation controls for all six colors. I used the gains to take the S3225QC to reference level.

There are six HDR modes that engage when HDR10 signals are present. Desktop is the default, but I found HDR Peak 1000 a little more dynamic in tone. Custom Color HDR lets you calibrate, but that is completely unnecessary as the S3225QC is spot-on out of the box. Dolby Vision can be toggled on and off and is compatible with Dolby Vision content, video, and gaming.

The PBP/PIP mode offers five different screen splits and positioning of the PIP window when viewing two video sources at once.

In the audio menu, you can toggle the spatial audio on and off. When it’s on, a bezel-mounted sensor tracks the user’s head position to focus the sound appropriately. It creates a palpable sense of space and immersion with sound seeming to come from the sides and behind.

The joystick and on-screen quick menu can be programmed to provide quick access to many monitor functions. In the Others menu is a panel health indicator and an option to run the refresh routine manually. When the health indicator turns red, it runs the refresh automatically. Finally, you can view the calibration report in the info menu, which contains nine pages of information unique to each S3225QC.

Dell S3225QC Calibration Settings

The S3225QC doesn’t require calibration in the Standard picture mode, but if you visit Custom Color, it’s possible to make the picture even more precise. It offers RGB gain and bias sliders; I only had to adjust the gains for excellent results. It also includes hue and saturation sliders, but I didn’t need to change those. The only thing missing here is gamma presets, which isn’t a big deal if 2.2 is the goal. It hits that perfectly. But options are always welcome. Some users might prefer 2.0 or 2.4. My SDR settings are below. I noted that there is no variable brightness option available. For HDR signals, the peak does vary, and you get six additional modes. HDR Peak 1000 is the best choice there.

Swipe to scroll horizontally

Picture Mode

Custom Color

Brightness 200 nits

89

Brightness 120 nits

49

Brightness 100 nits

37

Brightness 80 nits

25

Brightness 50 nits

9 (min. 36 nits)

Contrast

75

Color Temp User

Gain – Red 94, Green 96, Blue 99

Row 8 – Cell 0

Bias – Red 50, Green 50, Blue 50

Gaming and Hands-on

Admittedly, I took on a review of a 120 Hz gaming monitor with a little trepidation. I frequently say, and still maintain, that 144 Hz should be considered a starting point, and you can never have too many Hertz. Initial tests during the S3225QC’s installation showed slight motion blur in my suite of moving test patterns. But once I loaded up Doom Eternal, my perception changed.

I am not a skilled gamer, but I am experienced enough that I can get through most titles on a moderate difficulty level. With the S3225QC, I noticed the blur only because I knew about it in advance. And once I started playing, it didn’t reduce my enjoyment of the monitor one bit. A lot of that is thanks to its fantastic sound.

The spatial audio feature is a real thing, and I was immediately struck by the expansive sound stage. Though it works best with content mastered in Dolby Atmos, it had a positive impact on the stereo feed from games and YouTube videos. The bass was so present, it seemed a little overblown at first, but within a few minutes, I realized I was hearing the full spectrum of sound, which is a rarity from a computer monitor. This had a profoundly positive effect on gameplay. When Dell or Alienware adds this feature to a faster monitor, they’ll have a hard time keeping up with demand. It’s that good.

More familiar aspects of my usual run-and-gun and rapid turn maneuvers were handled well by the S3225QC. Motion blur is there but not distractingly so. And input lag is low enough for my average skills; it kept up with me just fine. However, if you’re a pro-level competitor, this monitor won’t be the best choice.

The physical elegance and design played well into the everyday workload when I wrote copy in Word, or managed test data in Excel. A large screen is perfect for this because there is ample room for two or three documents in fully readable form. Side by side editing is the main reason I go for 32-inch 16:9 screens. The S3225QC’s does this well and adds a flexible PBP option if you need to connect two video sources. I also noted the extra USB-C ports, including the nifty pop-out one underneath the panel.

Takeaway: Though the S3225QC lacks the perfect motion resolution of its 240 Hz competition, it more than makes up for it with incredible audio quality. Among gaming and entertainment screens, you won’t find better sound. And it makes a compelling alternative to headphones, even the premium ones with spatial audio. For everyday use, it offers lots of screen area, flexible PIP/PBP and plenty of USB ports along with a colorful, bright, accurate and contrasty image.

MORE: Best Gaming Monitors

MORE: How We Test PC Monitors

MORE: How to Buy a PC Monitor

Dell S3225QC: Price Comparison



Source link

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
DAAPrivacyRightIcon
Product Reviews

The best gaming monitors in 2025

by admin


If you want to get the most out of your games — whether you’re into competitive FPS titles, sprawling RPGs or story-driven adventures — a good gaming monitor can make all the difference. Smooth gameplay, low input lag and crisp visuals are just the start. With the right screen, everything from your aim to your immersion gets a serious upgrade.

These days, there’s a lot more to consider than just refresh rate or screen size. You’ll find ultrawide gaming monitors, widescreen displays, models with USB-C support, and monitors that can bring out the best in your CPU and GPU. Some even match the style of your setup, pairing perfectly with gaming headsets and accessories for a clean, cohesive look.

Whether you’re shopping on a tighter price range or splurging on high-end picture quality, we’ve rounded up the best options to suit different setups and play styles — so you can level up your experience without the guesswork.

Table of contents

Best gaming monitors for 2025

AOC

Screen size: 27-inch | Resolution: 2,560 x 1,440 | Refresh rate: 180Hz | Panel type: VA | Response time: 1ms GtG | Aspect ratio: 16:9 | Brightness: 1000 cd/m² | Weight: 11.9 pounds with stand | Display type: VA panel with Mini LED backlight | Response time: 1 ms GtG | Connector type: 1 × DisplayPort 1.4, 2 × HDMI 2.0

The Q27G3XMN offers a nearly unbeatable mix of features, performance and affordability. It’s a mini-LED monitor with HDR performance that’s not as good as the OLEDs on this list, but far better than anything you’ll find on an edge-lit LCD. With a 180Hz refresh rate, it’s also fast enough for all but the most fast-paced competitive esports games. Best of all, it’s priced affordably at under $300. For those reasons, unless you have a bigger budget or more specific needs, the Q27G3XMN is going to be the best bet for most people.

Pros

  • Relatively affordable
  • True HDR performance
  • Fast enough

Cons

  • Expect some smearing
  • No USB ports

$298 at Amazon

AOC

Screen Size: 23.8-inch | Resolution: 1,920 x 1080 | Refresh Rate: 180 Hz | Panel Type: VA | Response Rate: 4ms (gtg) | Aspect Ratio: 16:9 | Brightness: 250 cd/m² | Weight: 6.9 pounds with stand | Display type: VA panel with W‑LED backlight | Response time: 1 ms MPRT | Connector type: 1 × HDMI 2.0, 1 × DisplayPort 1.4, plus 3.5 mm audio out

Today, there are only two reasons to buy a 1080p monitor: Either you want the fastest possible display, or you want to spend as little as possible and get as much performance as possible. If the latter is true, I would go for the AOC 24G15. For $110, you’ll get a 24-inch screen with a high contrast VA panel, 180Hz refresh rate and 1ms response rate. If you’re patient, I’ve seen the 24G15 go on sale for as little as $90.

One thing to note: AOC also sells a 27-inch version of the 24G15 for about $30 more. I would avoid that model; it won’t look good due to low pixel density.

Pros

  • Affordable
  • 180Hz refresh rate
  • 1ms response rate

Cons

  • Low resolution
  • Epect some smearing

$109 at Amazon

Alienware

Screen size: 26.7-inch | Resolution: 2,560 x 1,440 | Refresh rate: 360Hz | Panel type: QD-OLED | Response time: 0.03ms (GtG) | Aspect ratio: 16:9 | Brightness: 250 cd/m² | Weight: 9.4 pounds without stand | Display type: QD‑OLED | Response time: 0.03 ms GtG | Connector type: 2 × DisplayPort 1.4, 1 × HDMI 2.1, USB 3.2 Gen 1 hub including 1 × Type‑C (downstream)

If you want a gaming monitor that basically does it all, the Alienware AW2725DF has a lot going for it. This QD-OLED features a 360Hz refresh rate and 0.03ms response. It also carries a Vesa DisplayHDR True Black 400 certification, so expect near-flawless HDR performance. It even has a HDMI 2.1 port if you want to use it with an Xbox Series X or PlayStation 5. From a performance standpoint, the only downside is that it won’t produce true blacks in rooms with too much ambient light. However, this is true of every QD-OLED monitor on the market right now.

At close to $1,000, it’s also expensive. But for what it’s worth, the OLED market is incredibly competitive at the moment. I’ve seen the AW2725DF go on sale a few times over the past couple of months, dropping to as low as $700.

Pros

  • 360Hz refresh rate
  • Fantastic HDR performance
  • Three-year burn-in coverage

$698 at Amazon

Dell

Screen size: 34.18-inch | Resolution: 3,440 x 1,440 | Refresh rate: 165 Hz | Panel type: QD-OLED | Response time: 0.01ms (GtG) | Aspect Ratio: 21:9 | Brightness: 250 cd/m² | Weight: 13.8 pounds with stand | Display type: QD‑OLED ultrawide (curved 21:9) | Response time: 0.1 ms | Connector type: Built‑in USB 3.2 Gen 1 hub, standard DP and HDMI inputs

For those looking for a more immersive gaming experience, an ultrawide monitor is the way to go. And right now, one of the best 21:9 displays you can buy is the Dell AW3423DWF. It offers an excellent 165Hz refresh rate, 0.01ms response time and AMD FreeSync Premium Pro support. The panel is also DisplayHDR TrueBlack 400 certified, making it great for watching movies and playing single-player games. The only feature that would make the AW3423DWF better is had Dell included an HDMI 2.1 port, but since ultrawide gaming isn’t really a thing in console gaming, the omission is not a deal breaker.

$571 at Amazon

LG

Screen size: 31.46-inch | Resolution: 4K and 1080p | Refresh rate: 240Hz and 480Hz | Panel type: WOLED | Response time: 0.03ms (GtG) | Aspect ratio: 16:9 | Brightness: 275 cd/m² | Weight: 19.8 pounds with stand | Display type: WOLED dual‑mode OLED (4K UHD or FHD) | Response time: 0.03 ms GtG | Connector type: DisplayPort and HDMI ports (DP for 4K 240 Hz or HDMI for 1080p 480 Hz), G‑Sync/FreeSync compatible

If money is no object and you play a mix of immersive games and competitive shooters, the LG 32GS95UE-B is the monitor for you. It offers something no other monitor on this list does. The 32GS95UE-B4K is both a 4K, 240Hz display and an FHD, 480Hz one. Moreover, it can switch between those two modes with the press of a button.

Yes, the 1080p output looks muddy stretched across a 32-inch screen, but for a feature that extends the versatility of an already incredible monitor, that’s a small sacrifice. At $1,400, the 2GS95UE-B is the most expensive monitor on this list. But if you’re in the market for a 4K display, chances are you’ve already spent a lot of money building a PC that can drive that many pixels.

Pros

  • Dual 4K and 1080p modes
  • Up to 480Hz refresh rate
  • OLED

Cons

  • Very expensive
  • Low pixel density at FHD

$1,099 at Adorama

How we test gaming monitors

While I’ve not used every product recommended in our list, I have extensively tested dozens of gaming monitors in the past, including models with WOLED and QD-OLED panels. In the case of the Alienware monitor I highlight above, I bought one for myself with my own money. Separately, I spent dozens of hours over a two-year period researching computer monitor options to write the current version of this guide.

Factors to consider before buying a gaming monitor

LCD vs OLED

When shopping for a gaming monitor, you first need to decide if you want to go with a screen that has an LCD or OLED panel. For most people, that choice will come down to price; OLED gaming monitors are more expensive than their LCD counterparts. Even if money isn’t a concern, the choice might not be as straightforward as you think; both LCD and OLED panels come in a few different flavors, and knowing the differences between each type is important to making an informed decision.

LCD monitors come in three different varieties: twisted nematic (TN), vertical alignment (VA) or in-plane switching (IPS). For the most part, you want to avoid TN monitors unless you’re strapped for cash or want a monitor with the fastest possible refresh rate or fast response rate. TN screens feature the worst viewing angles, contrast ratios and colors of the group.

The differences between VA and IPS panels are more subtle. Historically, VA gaming monitors featured slower pixel response times than their TN and IPS counterparts, leading to unsightly image smearing. However, that’s improved in recent years. VA panels also frequently sport better contrast ratios than both TN and IPS screens. They’re not dramatically better than their IPS siblings on that front, but when contrast ratios aren’t an inherent strength of LCDs, every bit helps.

On the other hand, IPS panels excel at color accuracy and many offer high refresh rates and response times that are as fast as the fastest TN panels. The majority of LCD gaming monitors on the market today feature IPS panels, though you will frequently find VA screens on ultrawide monitors.

What about OLED?

If you can afford one, an OLED screen makes for the best monitor for gaming. The ability of organic light-emitting diodes to produce true blacks is transformational. Simply put, every game looks better when there isn’t a backlight to wash out shadow detail. Plus, you can experience true HDR with an OLED screen, something that LCDs aren’t known for.

Today, OLED screens come in two different flavors: WOLED and QD-OLED, with LG producing the former and Samsung the latter. I won’t bore you with the technical details of how the two panel types differ from one another other than to note both technologies broadly offer the same set of shortcomings.

Most notably, OLED monitors don’t get very bright. At best, the most capable models peak at around 250 nits when measuring brightness across the entire screen. I didn’t find this to be an issue in my testing, but your experience may vary depending on the ambient light in your gaming setup.

If brightness is important to you, note that due to manufacturer tunings, different models can perform better than others, even if they feature the same panel from LG or Samsung. It’s worth comparing monitors in the same class to find the model that’s right for you.

Separately, almost all OLEDs feature sub-pixel layouts that produce text fringing in Windows. The latest generation of OLED panels from both LG and Samsung are much better in this regard, to the point where modern OLEDs are good enough for reading and image editing. However, it’s still worth going to your local Micro Center or Best Buy to see the model you want in person, as the text fringing issue is hard to capture in photos and videos.

Another (potentially more serious) issue is burn-in. Organic light-emitting diodes can get “stuck” if they display the same image for long periods of time. Every OLED gaming monitor you can buy today comes with features designed to prevent burn-in and other image quality issues. Provided you don’t use your new OLED monitor for eight hours of daily productivity work, I don’t think you need to worry about burn-in too much.

Screen size, resolution and aspect ratio

After deciding where you fall on the LCD vs OLED debate, you can start thinking about the size of your future gaming monitor. Personal preference and the limitations of your gaming setup will play a big part here, but there are also a few technical considerations. You should think about size in conjunction with resolution and aspect ratio.

A 1440p monitor has 78 percent more pixels than a 1080p resolution screen, and a 4K display has more than twice as many pixels as a QHD panel. As the size of a monitor increases, pixel density decreases unless you also increase resolution. For that reason, there are sweet spots between size and high resolution. For instance, I wouldn’t recommend buying an FHD monitor that is larger than 24 inches or a QHD one bigger than 27 inches. Conversely, text and interface elements on a 4K monitor can look tiny without scaling on panels smaller than 32 inches.

You also need to consider the performance costs of running games at higher resolutions. The latest entry-level GPUs can comfortably run most modern games at 1080p and 60 frames per second. They can even render some competitive titles at 120 frames per second and higher — but push them to run those same games at 1440p and beyond, and you’re bound to run into problems. And as you’ll see in a moment, a consistently high frame rate is vital to getting the most out of the latest gaming monitors.

If your budget allows for it, 1440p offers the best balance between image quality and gaming performance. As for 1080p resolution and 4K, I would only consider the former if you’re on a tight budget or enjoy competitive gaming shooters like Valorant and Overwatch 2. For most people, the user experience and productivity benefits of QHD far outweigh the performance gains you get from going with a lower resolution screen.

Just a few years ago, 4K was not a viable resolution for PC gaming, but then NVIDIA came out with its 40 series GPUs. With those video cards offering the company’s DLSS 3 frame generation technology, there’s a case to be made that the technology is finally there to play 4K games at a reasonable frame rate, particularly if you exclusively play big, AAA single-player games like Alan Wake 2 and Cyberpunk 2077 or enjoy strategy games like the Total War series. However, even with frame generation, you will need a GPU like the $999 RTX 4080 Super or $1,599 RTX 4090 to drive a 4K display. Plus, 4K gaming monitors tend to cost more than their 1440p counterparts.

If you want an ultrawide, note that not every game supports the 21:9 aspect ratio, and fewer still support 32:9. When shopping for a curved monitor, a lower Radius, or ‘R’ number, indicates a more aggressive curve. So, a 1000R monitor is more curved than an 1800R one.

The best gaming monitor

(Photo by Igor Bonifacic / Engadget)

Refresh rates and response times

And now, finally, for the fun stuff. The entire reason to buy a gaming monitor is for its ability to draw more images than a traditional computer monitor. As you shop for a new screen, you will see models advertising refresh rates like 120Hz, 240Hz and 360Hz. The higher the refresh rate of a monitor, the more times it can update the image it displays on screen every second, thereby producing a smoother moving image. When it comes to games like Overwatch, Valorant and League of Legends, a faster refresh rate can give you a competitive edge, but even immersive single-player games can benefit.

A monitor with a 240Hz refresh rate will look better in motion than one with a 120Hz refresh rate, but there are diminishing returns. At 60Hz, the image you see on your computer monitor is updated every 16.67ms. At 120Hz, 240Hz and 360Hz, the gap between new frames shortens to 8.33ms, 4.17ms and 2.78ms, respectively. Put another way, although a 360Hz monitor can display 50 percent more frames than a 240Hz screen in a given time period, you will only see a speedup of 1.14ms between frame intervals. And all that depends on your GPU’s ability to render a consistent 360 frames per second.

Ultimately, a fast response monitor will do you no good if you don’t have a gaming PC with a graphics card that can keep up. For example, with a 1440p 360Hz monitor, you realistically need a GPU like the RTX 4070 Super or RTX 4080 Super to saturate that display while playing competitive gaming titles like Overwatch 2 and Valorant.

There’s also more to motion clarity than refresh rates alone. Just as important are fast response times, or the amount of time it takes for pixels to transition from one color to another and then back again. Monitors with slow response times tend to produce smearing that is distracting no matter what kind of game you’re playing. Curved gaming monitor options help with immersion by wrapping the screen around your field of vision, making the gaming setup feel more expansive. Unfortunately, response times are also one of the more opaque aspects of picking the best gaming monitor for your needs.

Many LCD monitor manufacturers claim their products feature 1ms gray-to-gray (GtG) response times, yet they don’t handle motion blur to the same standard. One of the reasons for that is that many companies tend to cherry-pick GtG results that make their monitors look better on paper. The Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) recently created a new certification program to address that problem, but the grading system is unwieldy and, as far as I can tell, hasn’t had a lot of pickup from manufacturers.

For now, your best bet is to turn to resources like Rtings and Monitors Unboxed when shopping for a new gaming monitor. Both outlets conduct extensive testing of every screen they review and present their findings and recommendations in a way that’s easy to understand.

FreeSync vs G-Sync

No matter how powerful your system, it will sometimes fail to maintain a consistent framerate. In fact, you should expect frame rate fluctuations when playing graphically-intensive games like Alan Wake 2 and Cyberpunk 2077. For those moments, you want a gaming display with adaptive sync. Otherwise, you can run into screen tearing.

Adaptive sync technologies come in a few flavors. The two you’re most likely to encounter are AMD FreeSync and NVIDIA G-Sync, and each has its own set of performance tiers. With G-Sync, for instance, they are – from lowest to highest – G-Sync Compatible, G-Sync and G-Sync Ultimate.

The good news is that you don’t need to think too much about which adaptive sync technology a display supports. In the early days of the tech, it was rare to see a gaming monitor that offered both FreeSync and G-Sync since including the latter meant a manufacturer had to equip their display with a dedicated processor from NVIDIA. That changed in 2019 when the company introduced its G-Sync Compatible certification. Today, if a monitor supports FreeSync, it is almost certainly G-Sync Compatible, too, meaning you can enjoy tear-free gaming whether you’re using an AMD or NVIDIA GPU.

In fact, I would go so far as to say you shouldn’t make your purchasing decision based on the level of adaptive sync performance a monitor offers. As of right now, the list of G-Sync Ultimate-certified displays is about two dozen models long, and some are a few years old now.

The best gaming monitor

(Photo by Igor Bonifacic / Engadget)

Inputs

Almost every gaming display on the market right now comes with at least one DisplayPort 1.4 connection, and that’s the port you will want to use to connect your new monitor to your graphics card. If you own a PS5 or Xbox Series X/S, it’s also worth looking out for monitors that come with HDMI 2.1 ports, as those will allow you to get the most out of your current generation console.

A word about HDR

As fast and responsive gaming monitors have become in recent years, there’s one area where progress has been frustratingly slow: HDR performance. The majority of gaming monitors currently on sale, including most high-end models, only meet VESA’s DisplayHDR 400 certification. As someone who owned one such monitor, let me tell you it’s not even worth turning on HDR on those screens. You will only be disappointed.

The good news is that things are getting better, albeit slowly. The release of Windows 11 did a lot to improve the state of HDR on PC, and more games are shipping with competent HDR modes, not just ones that increase the brightness of highlights. Thankfully, with more affordable mini-LED monitors, like our top pick, making their way to the market, HDR gaming is finally within reach of most PC gamers.

Gaming monitor FAQs

Are curved monitors better for gaming?

It depends on personal preference. Many manufacturers claim curved monitors offer a more immersive gaming experience due to the way the display wraps around your field of vision. However, I find the edge distortion distracting, particularly when you increase the field of view in a game.

What aspect ratio should I look for in a gaming monitor?

The vast majority of 24-, 27- and 32-inch gaming monitors feature 16:9 aspect ratio panels, and that’s been the case for many years. In fact, nearly every game made in the last two decades supports 16:9 resolutions, such as 1,920 x 1,080 and 2,560 by 1,440, and if you buy a standard-sized monitor, you won’t need to worry about letterboxing.

In the case of ultrawides, 21:9 is the most common aspect ratio, with some very wide models sporting 32:9 panels. Among games, support for 21:9 and 32:9 resolutions is far from universal, so don’t be surprised if a game doesn’t fill the entirety of your screen.

Is OLED good for gaming?

OLED monitors are great for gaming. Not only do they offer excellent motion clarity and input latency, but they’re also easily the best displays for HDR gaming. If money is no object, and you primarily use your PC for gaming, you can’t go wrong with an OLED monitor.

How much does a good gaming monitor cost?

While you could easily spend more than $1,000 to obtain the best gaming monitor on the market now, the reality is that the budget and midrange categories have never been more competitive. In 2015, I spent $500 CAD to buy a 1080p monitor with a 144Hz refresh rate and TN panel. The budget AOC model I highlight above is not only cheaper than my first gaming monitor, but it also features a faster 180Hz refresh rate and a higher contrast VA panel.



Source link

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Close