This was the largest television I’d ever encountered, and I’ve seen plenty of bizarro TVs that would never grace store shelves. Everything from huge, curved beasts priced at $200,000 to see-through screens. But at 115 inches, this TCL 115QM891G was the real deal. And it loomed.
It had arrived at CNET’s New York testing labs on loan from TCL. Weighing in at 229 pounds, this TV was trouser-rippingly heavy. So unwieldy, in fact, that it took four of us and a solid half-hour to assemble. On my own, I could barely manage to push the empty box across the room.
It was undeniably a monster, bigger than most. Yet it serves as a clear reminder that we’re living in an era of bright, supersized screens calling to us from the walls of Best Buy, waiting for a place to belong.
The future is here. And the future is big.
The real question is, how big is too big? Living room entertainment has evolved dramatically, from the tiny screens and bulky stereo consoles of the ’50s to the boxy cathode ray TVs of the ’80s and ’90s. Today, TVs are sleek slabs – just like our phones, but on a far grander scale.
Manufacturers have mastered the art of creating massive screens with modern display technologies like LCD, LED and OLED, making those big screens more affordable. At the same time, streaming quality has advanced significantly, and with innovations like 4K and HDR, content now looks stunning even on the largest screens. If you’re looking to buy a budget 50-inch LCD, there are plenty of options to choose from. But if it’s true immersion you’re after, be prepared to pay – and probably big.
Every year at CES, the big showcase in Las Vegas for consumer electronics, TV manufacturers unveil a chorus line of ever-exciting models, and a host of emerging technologies that will inform future designs. In 2025, TV manufacturers have announced a series of freakishly large screens, including the 98-inch TCL QM6K, the 115-inch Samsung Q90F and a 136-inch MicroLED from Hisense. Sure, you could argue that TVs like these are only meant for millionaires, but as I write this, TCL’s other 98-inch model, the 98Q651G QLED, is surprisingly affordable at $1,800.
With so much uncertainty right now, not everyone can afford a huge TV. A CNET survey in January revealed that most people are looking to spend less than $1,000 on a new screen. Others may not have the space for it, or simply don’t want something that big. Our survey also revealed that TVs 75 inches or smaller are the most sought after.
Complicating matters are the other screens in our lives – smartphones, tablets and virtual reality headsets. We now have countless ways to watch shows, follow Oscar nominees, play video games and stay entertained. Will we eventually retreat into our own worlds of huge, virtual screens?
Still, massive TV designs hint at where the future might take us. It’s not always about a single screen – some innovators are exploring ways to integrate multiple screens throughout a room, where the TV isn’t just the focal point but transforms into the room itself. This concept is already technically possible, as demonstrated at CES 2025. However, as we discovered, there is a practical limit to just how big a TV can get.
Also read: Best TVs of 2025
How big is too big for screens?
When it came time to send the TCL back home from its sojourn in the CNET lab, we called on the manufacturer to pick it up. Four people showed up – this TV was about to provide entertainment of a different kind.
“When they wrapped up, and were carting it toward the freight elevator,” says Theo Liggians, a CNET social media producer who works in that office, “everyone cheered and clapped it through – as if we were retiring the number of a basketball player and watching their jersey get hung from the rafters.”
This is that 115-inch TCL being brought into the freight elevator (where it barely fit) to get to CNET’s lab in New York.
When I imagine the future of TV, I think of a room made up of video screens – floor, walls and ceilings – and there are 100 cable channels playing at once. Naturally, I’m smoking a cigar, wearing a sleeveless shirt and ironing. Suddenly, I’m the Old Man Logan version of Wolverine (which tracks, since Hugh Jackman, like me, is Australian). While this kind of TV technology already exists, as I’ll explain shortly, it’s also very expensive.
Though having a wall-sized TV is every movie and gaming fan’s dream, it’s far from practical. Sam Jordan, head of computing and emerging technologies at the Future Today Institute, noted that even in a future filled with huge televisions, certain constraints will remain.
“I live in an apartment. I don’t want my TV to be the entire wall,” Jordan says. “It’s not just the scale of the screen; it’s also what it would ask of us – we’d be constantly moving our heads,” she says. “So I think that there’s absolutely a practical cutoff.”
Living spaces won’t change that much. If you live in a city, you likely have walls, doors and windows that weren’t built with enormous TV screens in mind. Installing a TV in an existing living room can be a challenge, and even getting it into the property can be tricky.
Take the case of Reddit user The_Real_Rare_Pepe. He managed to get his new 98-inch Samsung TV, still in its box, stuck in the entryway of his house. Worried about unpacking it and navigating the narrow space, he decided to send it back with the delivery crew.
Buying a big screen TV is a lot like purchasing any other large item, like a fridge or a king-size mattress, but far more delicate. A 90-inch screen is about the size of a king mattress, yet significantly heavier and far less flexible than a box spring. Moving one of these things around is difficult. If you’re buying a really humongous TV, take my advice: don’t even think about moving it yourself.
TV manufacturers aren’t losing much sleep over incidents like Pepe’s. TCL’s Executive Vice President Chris Hamdorf contends that 98 inches is the ultimate size for the living room, while 115 inches is for a dedicated space like a home cinema.
Yet even Hamdorf acknowledges that “when it gets to 115, that’s going to start being a problem.” If you’re considering a screen that size, you should do some prep work, including measuring doorways.
In our case, even though we had the space to test the 115-inch TV in our lab, it still presented a challenge when navigating its way from the elevator. For an apartment or a modest-sized house, it’s simply too big, too heavy and too much.
“Oh my gosh. There’s no more room for any of the furniture,” CNET Senior Editor Mike Sorrentino exclaimed as we were unboxing the TCL.
Not to mention, at $20,000, it costs more than a Kia Rio or a Nissan Versa.
As TVs grow larger, another issue arises: when turned off, they become a massive black rectangle in your room. The bigger the TV, the bigger the rectangle. One solution – though not the cheapest – is to have the screen display something even when it’s powered down. Models like the Samsung Frame, TCL NXTFrame and the Hisense Canvas make this feature the centerpiece of their design, with matte screen coatings making the surface appear more like an artwork.
It’s a Trojan horse: Companies are trying to normalize gallery modes now – preparing for the day when the TV is the room.
The screens that most people are buying
Almost everyone buying a TV today will be buying a 4K TV – from 32 inches all the way to 115 inches and beyond. Yet, the reasons people buy TVs haven’t changed in 50 years. They’re still used to watch sports, catch movies and shows and play games with friends. While the content has evolved and the quality has improved drastically, the core purpose remains the same. And most people can do this without needing a monumental television.
In 2012, I reviewed a TV that I considered gigantic at the time – the 80-inch LE632 Sharp TV. Back then, this TV was priced at $5,499 and came with its flaws, including a 1080p resolution that made individual pixels clearly visible from up to six feet away. While the price of 80-inch TVs has stayed relatively steady, today’s models now have much sharper 4K resolution screens. Comparing the older TV to the 115-inch TCL above, I had to have my face against the screen to see any of the 4K pixels. Yet prices of larger TVs could still be cheaper.
Unlike some of the whizz-bang TVs announced this year – with MicroLED and OLED onboard – most TVs bought now, and probably for the foreseeable future, will use LCD technology. LCD is a mature and relatively cheap technology to manufacture. (TV model names usually include a reference to the backlight type, like LCD, LED, Mini-LED or even QLED.)
The scalability of LCD is significant when you’re looking to get the maximum bang for your buck. Most people aren’t looking to spend a lot of money on a new TV. According to CNET’s survey, one third look to spend under $500. When you consider that you can buy a decent 50-inch LCD for less than $350, it makes a lot of sense.
There is a benefit to going bigger, though. CNET has long used 65 inches as its default size for testing new TVs – it’s a popular choice. In fact, one in five people we surveyed said 65 inches is the largest TV they’d consider for their home, even if cost weren’t a factor, followed closely by 75 inches at 18%.
Furthermore, only 12% said they’d consider a 100-inch TV or larger for their home, even if money weren’t a concern, but this size will likely increase as technology improves and prices drop. Unlike most other devices, TV prices typically decline over time.
“Screen sizes keep getting bigger and that has proven to drive interest and demand,” said Steven Baker, vice president of industry analysis at NPD Group, in 2020. “The No. 1 reason people buy a new TV is for the screen size and I don’t expect that to change.”
And indeed it hasn’t.
Consider Samsung’s blockbuster TV from CES 2014 – a 105-inch curved screen priced at $200,000. In comparison, TCL’s 2024 model is larger and costs just a tenth of that price.
The future of TV (if you can afford it)
When it comes to living spaces, some people have no control over factors like renting or living in an older home. That’s where modular screens come in – they can be customized to fit around obstacles that would be impractical for a traditional TV. My dream of a literal “TV room” can be yours, too!
MicroLED, not to be confused with Mini-LED, has long promised wall-sized, modular displays. The best-known version is Samsung’s The Wall, but other TV makers are getting into the MicroLED act, too. Ventana was one of several TV builders showing off modular displays at CES this year – either interlocking tiles or more traditional-looking TVs that can be tethered together.
“We’ve installed displays that are basically wall to wall, ceiling to ceiling and the entire surface is the display,” Ventana founder Jeremy Hochman says. The technology part is straightforward, he explains, and the company could “very easily integrate into the wall in a home.” The issue then becomes whether there’s content that works for the format.
“So we’re getting into things like, you know, 12K, 16K, sometimes even 30K resolution,” Hochman says. “And so the challenge right now for going kind of that massive is, where’s the content coming from, and what’s the playback mechanism?”
Apart from physical bulk, the other factor limiting the uptake of extraordinarily big TVs is their cost. Ventana says the price of one of its displays starts in the six figure range, but the industry is taking steps to remedy this. Especially this most expensive kind.
Enlarge Image
Awall’s C Series MicroLED displays, seen here at CES 2025, are modular, featuring individual blocks that together make up the display.
CNET’s Geoff Morrison, who visited another modular-building company, Awall, at CES, notes that “bright, wall-size TVs are certainly getting closer to the range where we mere mortals can afford them.” While Ventana uses tiles, Awall uses traditional-shaped TVs that fit together, and the prices are more modest, starting at $7,990 for a 75-inch display.
Compared to established technologies like OLED and LCD, MicroLED is still in its infancy – no mainstream TV using it has been released yet. MicroLED offers advantages like no image retention and exceptional brightness, but the challenge lies in the complexity and cost of constructing a TV with billions of subpixel LEDs. However, new innovations showcased at CES, such as UV MicroLED, could help bring prices down.
Even TCL – which was one of the first adopters of MicroLED – doesn’t think that the screen type will challenge the popularity of existing technologies.
“MicroLED is, at least for the time being, more of a commercial or a very, very rich person product. It’s very expensive. So it’s not going to be mainstream anytime soon,” says Scott Ramirez, TCL’s vice president of product marketing and development for home theater.
As TVs get bigger, it’s possible many people will be left behind. Wall-sized TVs may be fun and futuristic, but even with some technology tweaks, only a small percentage of people will ever be able to afford and install them.
How big does a TV really need to be to be immersive?
If you’ve ever been to see a movie at an Imax theater, you’ll know how immersive a big screen can be – the image almost completely fills your vision. Films such as Dune: Part 2 were shot specifically for Imax, so what if you could replicate that experience at home?
Your average Imax theater screen is a whopping 72 feet wide, and it eats 70% of your field of vision. The result is great fun for a couple of hours, but experts like the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers don’t recommend watching TV like that, because you’d simply be too close to the screen. So maybe it’s not what you should aspire to for your home viewing.
The SMPTE recommends that a TV fill a minimum of just 30% of your field of vision for content such as watching TV and playing games. How do you get to that number in your own home? As Morrison explains in this sizing guide, you multiply the distance from your couch to your TV (in inches) by 0.625, and that’s the screen size you need. For instance, I sit 9 feet from my TV at home and so… carry the math… I would need a 67.5-inch TV.
At CES 2025, TCL showed off its 115-inch QM7K. It hasn’t yet revealed pricing or other details.
If you’re a cinephile, the recommendation from entertainment technology company THX is for an even larger TV — you need to multiply the distance by 0.835. With a screen of the corresponding size, this will give you a more cinema-like feel, at 40% field of vision. Not quite Imax, but certainly less tiring on the eyeballs. If you want to experiment with sizing for yourself, FF Pictures has a great calculator that lets you configure all of the variables.
What size should you really buy, though? It’s up to you, but my recommendation is to always get as big as you can afford. Manufacturers, naturally, agree.
“A lot of people ask what size TV should I buy, and I always tell people to buy one size bigger than you think you need,” says Hamdorf.
However, there is an easy “hack” that lets you “trade up” to a bigger screen without having to buy a new TV. It seems obvious, but if you have the TV on a stand, you can simply move it, or your couch, a little closer. Bam, more screen — technically, more TV image filling your field of view.
If you have your current set wall-mounted, then it’s a little more involved, but still achievable. You’ll probably need to consider a new bracket — one that can extend the screen closer to you on an arm. These brackets aren’t expensive, especially compared to a new TV, starting at about $70. Depending on the mount, it can bring the TV two feet closer or more to your position, which could add around 10% more screen.
However, these brackets do need a little more care than a flush mount, as they exert more force on the wall, so if you’re unsure you may consider getting it professionally installed. Admittedly, getting a new bracket isn’t as elegant or exciting as a new, flush-mounted OLED, but it is affordable.
Will we have to worry about vertical screens or 8K?
Despite the ongoing tribulations of TikTok, the era of vertical video is steadfastly here, but can that translate to big TVs? From Instagram Stories to YouTube Shorts, most short-form and viral content is presented in a way that can be easily viewed on a mobile phone. Unfortunately, it looks terrible on a TV. That’s because TVs are horizontal, while phones are generally held vertically. If you display vertical video on a big TV, you get huge swaths of unused space to either side of the image.
Manufacturers have tried to solve the problem of vertical video on traditional sets in the past, offering up devices like the motorized Samsung Sero, a TV that can shift between portrait mode and landscape. The Sero never caught on — it was both small, at 43 inches, and expensive, at $1,500. But is a one-size-fits-all screen even necessary?
Vertical may be hot right now, but there is an almost inexhaustible amount of content designed to be watched on a traditional TV set. Ever since the invention of moving pictures, the screen has been wider than it is tall, starting with the silent film era and culminating in formats such as Cinerama (2.6:1) and HDTV (2.4:1).
The amount of studio-produced content for vertical video is currently minimal. Director Timur Bekmambetov (Searching, Ben Hur) directed “the first feature film to be shot for vertical video,” called V2 Escape from Hell. Yet the 2021 Russian-language movie premiered in landscape, while it’s reported that a series version of the film was presented vertically. And that’s it so far.
More publicly, the short-lived Quibi service back in 2020 surely sent a warning to filmmakers that the subscription model for vertical video was unsustainable. Roku ended up buying the Quibi back catalog for use in its Roku Channel. Paul Nangeroni, senior director of product management at Roku, calls Quibi “a spirited attempt.” Yet even he admits that content like that is a better fit for mobile phones.
“The dichotomy between full-length feature films and ‘snackable’ content will continue, and multiscreen use cases will be more significant,” Nangeroni says.
It’s unlikely that portrait video will ever become a mainstream TV form factor. Can you imagine trying to crane your head to see a 98-inch screen — from the floor to the ceiling of your home? And you thought that putting a TV above a fireplace was bad.
So you can cross the need to buy a vertical TV off the list, but what about that other screen format looming on the horizon: 8K?
In the 20 years I’ve been reviewing TVs, I’ve seen technology progress dramatically — from SD to HD to 4K to HDR. Of these, HDR is the most significant because it adds observable benefits — better colors and better contrast. While companies will inevitably try bringing another upgrade to HDR technology in the future, it’s not something anyone is talking about. Yet.
However, there is one technology that has been generating headlines for over 10 years, and it’s also one you don’t really have to worry about. While manufacturers have been readying 8K for a while, the big holdup is content, as neither streaming nor Hollywood is shooting or displaying in 8K. Not even movie theaters use the format, and cinema screens are bigger than any mass-market TV will ever be. 8K has four times the resolution of 4K, which sounds perfect for a huge TV (more detail!), but this also means it needs four times the data. Given that 4K is barely even a broadcast format right now, you can probably see where I’m headed with this.
8K TVs have been on the market for many years. 2018’s Samsung Q900 was the first to get a wide distribution, and Samsung is still selling 8K models today, but other manufacturers are more realistic about its impact.
“I don’t think 8K is going to be very important, at least in the near future. There’s very little content available for 8K, and without 8K content [there’s] really not much advantage for the consumer, and still a price premium,” TCL’s Ramirez says.
The second (and third and fourth) screen
If your household is anything like mine, then the TV isn’t the only screen operating at any time; there are probably two different displays for every person. These could consist of smart speakers, tablets and phones. Perhaps the TV won’t even stay the main focus of our living space.
“Will it be a communal form, or will it be individual?” asks Future Institute’s Sam Jordan. “I think that with entertainment, there is something that will always be true, that we like to consume things together.”
Some manufacturers posit that we don’t even need a big, clumsy screen lousing up our living space, and those displays will be clever, too. Smart glasses promise a vast screen without the bulk, or the need for four people to lift it. For instance, the $3,499 Apple Vision Pro promises a virtual, 100-foot-wide screen and will play Cinerama movies in their native aspect ratio. Roku’s Paul Nangeroni believes that devices like this could become more mainstream if they could replace a large TV for under $1,000.
Yet one could argue that the need to wear proprietary glasses was what killed 3D TV a decade ago, and it continues to hamper the uptake of virtual reality glasses. While sales of the Meta Quest 2 have been healthy – 20 million units so far – they aren’t suited to people who need to wear glasses. Having to buy and fit a set of contacts just to wear a $300 headset is too far for many people.
The author trying out a homemade headset as a makeshift small-screen TV viewing experience. An instant later, the Pixel 9 phone dropped to the floor.
Devices like Xreal One try to replicate the cinema environment, and boldly promise a 300-foot screen, but I don’t believe they’re the answer either. Xreal’s glasses look cool, but the first problem is that they aren’t wireless and they need to be tethered to your phone. I found the image was similar to just holding a phone up to my face.
Unimpressed with the Xreal, I was inspired to make my own — with two coffee stirrers and a roll of cloth tape. Of course, the “display” was too heavy, and it broke almost immediately. Maybe there is more to this than I thought?
Yet head-mounted displays may be onto something: Why should we be buying bigger and bigger black rectangles? What if we could make a TV that fits the space we have exactly? That’s where modular displays could come in.
Go big and stay home
Future-proofing is one of the main concerns when buying a new TV, but regardless of things like 8K and vertical video – the 4K TV you buy today will still work 10 years from now. Features are secondary to good old picture quality.
That said, technology continues to improve, and the $1,000 TV sold in 10 years will likely be better than one you buy for the same price today. It will definitely be bigger.
As to what size is optimum, it really does depend on your space and your own personal preference. There’s no need for a 115-inch TV at all right now, though this size will probably be even easier to put together in the future. Taking a step down, even 98 inches seems like a stretch, and yet if you’re looking for a TV now, always consider going bigger than what you need. Or stick with the one you have now and sit closer; there’s no real downside.
And as far as the effect that other devices will have on our space? What we’re likely going to see is very similar to what we have today – the TV as the center of the living room. Any second screens, in whatever form they take, will become even more immersive and integrated into the home, but won’t replace our need for togetherness.
The future is still human.
Correction, Feb. 4: TCL Executive Vice President Chris Hamdorf’s name was misspelled in an earlier version of this story. The 115-inch TV’s name has also been corrected.
Senior Motion Designers | Lily Yeh, Jeffrey Hazelwood
Creative Director | Viva Tung
Video production | Celso Bugatti, Jason Pepper, Carly Marsh
Project Manager | Danielle Ramirez
Director of Content | Jonathan Skillings
Editor | Corinne Reichert
Add comment