24" LCD Roundup

by Jarred Walton on May 1, 2008 8:00 PM EST

Gateway FHD2400 Specifications and Appearance

Gateway FHD2400 Specifications
Video Inputs DVI with HDCP support
HDMI
Analog (VGA)
Component
S-Video
Composite
Panel Type TN (GWY 0968)
Pixel Pitch 0.270mm
Colors 16.7 million (6-bit with dithering/interpolation?)
92% color gamut
Brightness 400 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio 1000:1 Static
Response Time 3ms GTG with UltraResponse
5ms GTG without UltraResponse
Viewable Size 24" diagonal
Resolution 1920x1200
Viewing Angle 160 horizontal/vertical
Power Consumption <150W max stated
76W max, 36W min measured
Power Savings <2W
Screen Treatment Glossy UltraBright
Height-Adjustable Yes - 5.00 inches
Tilt Yes - 25 degrees back/5 degrees forward
Pivot Yes
Swivel Yes - 360 degrees (with sufficient space)
VESA Wall Mounting 100mm x 100mm
Dimensions w/ Base (WxHxD) 22.48" x 17.36" x 9.92" lowered (WxHxD)
22.48" x 22.36" x 9.92" raised (WxHxD)
Weight w/ Stand 17.2 lbs.
Additional Features (2) USB 2.0 - left, (2) USB 2.0 - back
(USB connection to PC required)
Faroudja video processing
Audio Optional speaker bar
Limited Warranty 1-year parts and labor
3-year optional upgrades from Gateway ($30)
Price MSRP $500
Online starting at ~$450

The Gateway FHD2400 is similar to the Dell 2408WFP in some ways: you get a bevy of input options and a fully functional stand. Move beyond that areas and there are plenty of differences. First, like the ASUS MK241H the FHD2400 uses a TN panel. Unlike all of the other LCDs in this roundup, the Gateway includes a glossy panel. You can easily see reflections in the LCD, particularly when it's off or showing dark content in a well-lit room, but in normal use it's not much of a problem. In fact, we can stop right now for those of you that like glossy displays: this is a great 24" LCD and definitely gets our recommendation for the glossy club. (However, there are a few other caveats that we will get to shortly.)

Gateway doesn't offer quite as many input options as Dell, but then we imagine the vast majority of users will only use one input anyway. Still, you get HDMI and DVI digital inputs, VGA for analog computer use, and component video in case you want to use the display as an HDTV. (Does anyone actually still use S-Video or composite inputs?)


In some ways, the Gateway stand is the best of the bunch today. It has two small wheels on the bottom that allow you to rotate the display 360° -- and beyond as long as you manage to keep the cables out of the way. You need quite a large surface area to do this, but then most people will be okay swiveling the display 20 or 30° to the left or right. The aspect that we truly appreciate with the Gateway stand is that it offers 5" of height adjustment. Why is that important? It allows you to easily pivot the display into portrait mode, and you won't find us complaining about an extra inch in height adjustment. Even if you don't use the portrait mode, the pivot function proves to be extremely convenient when connecting or disconnecting cables -- we definitely missed it on the two LCDs that don't pivot. Similar to the Dell display, the stand also has a cutout in the center that can be used for cable management.

Based purely on appearance, we would rate the Gateway FHD2400 has the best-looking LCD of the bunch. That's a completely subjective opinion, of course, but a silver stand and accents with the glossy LCD panel are definitely eye-catching. Like ASUS, Gateway does put something of a blemish on the exterior by including a large marketing sticker in the bottom-right corner listing the various features, but take that off and you're left with an elegant LCD.

Dell 2408WFP Evaluation Gateway FHD2400 Evaluation
Comments Locked

89 Comments

View All Comments

  • Rasterman - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link

    I wish you would have reviewed an old CRT to compare the LCDs to. I still have my 22" beast and would upgrade if I knew if an LCD could beat its image quality. Comparing the best LCD to the best CRTs of 5 years ago would be interesting as I'm sure a lot people are still holding on to theirs given the results of the Valve survey suggesting more than 70% of gamers are using CRTs.
  • JarredWalton - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link

    The simple fact that new *quality* CRTs are not being made can't be overlooked. Five years back, you could get a high-end 22" CRT that would do 2048x1536 @ 85Hz (or 1600x1200 @ 110Hz). Now, most 21" CRTs only manage 1600x1200 @ 75Hz. Then throw in all the crap you have to deal with in terms of image centering and pincushion and trapezoidal distortion - all things that are completely non-existent on LCDs.

    When you consider size, weight, and cost, I'll take LCDs every time. OLED or some other display technology may replace LCDs, but conventional CRTs are brain-dead and the manufacturers are getting ready to remove life support.
  • Rasterman - Tuesday, May 6, 2008 - link

    I totally agree it makes no sense to buy a new CRT, but what I am asking is if its worth it to UPGRADE based purely on image quality. This is why I suggested comparing it to a CRT of 3-5 years ago and not a new one. Weight, size, and taking 10 seconds to align the image are all secondary to image quality. I don't see how you can ignore the fact that most people buying high-end LCDs are upgrading from high-end CRTs.
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 6, 2008 - link

    I (and many others) upgraded from CRTs about three years ago. I have never regretted the decision. I think colors are better, I love not dealing with image distortion (i.e. pincushion, trapezoidal, rotational, etc. adjustments), the size reduction at the same time as you get a larger screen area (22" CRTs are the equivalent of 20" LCDs).... I could go on.

    I think most professionals upgraded to LCDs a long time ago; the people who remain with CRTs are those who are ultra-dedicated to high refresh rates and faster pixel response times. The only area where that really matters is gaming. Throw in the fact that the phosphor used on CRTs starts to fade after 4-5 years, and even if you have the best CRT ever produced it's probably time to upgrade.

    In short, I am not ignoring CRTs; I am simply refusing to beat a dead horse.
  • probert - Friday, June 13, 2008 - link

    This may be an old thread but I'd like to put in my 2 cents.

    Love your reviews but I think you're wrong about CRT's. They're used more than you think and for someone who does print work they are an excellent inexpensive alternative to a really good lcd.

    For example Pixar has stockpiled CRT's (trinitron FD tubes) and I suspect a lot of places do. It takes about 15 minutes to calibrate one and - as far as being bulky - I'll admit I won't take mine backpacking any time soon, but why would I want to.

    There are sites that still sell new and refurbed CRTs with the trinitron FD tubes (Generally Dells and IBMs). These are superb and cost about $200.

    They are great for print work You can adjust not just rgb but bias and gain on each channel. Their color accuracy and ability to render gradients may be matched by a top line NEC - but at 1/6 the price.

    My set up is a 21" crt and an 8bit lcd for web work and checking sharpening. (In fact, I don't calibrate the LCD presently to simulate the general web experience. This is driving me a little crazy and I may tighten it up.) The whole rig cost $400.00 - has plenty of real-estate and has very good monitor to printer accuracy.


    I'm happy that people who don't need this precision use LCDs, as it saves energy and materials, but the crt is a very viable alternative for someone who does need accurate color and good tonal range for short money.

    In fact, I'll toss the gauntlet and say that for this particular niche - they are better than, or, as good as, any LCD on this or any other planet.
  • icthy - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link

    Just curious, has anyone actively considered buying either two 24" monitors as a substitute for one 30" monitor (or the other way around). I know it depends what one does, but I'm so frustrated working on my one 20" monitor, I want to go big, big, big! But I'm unsure if the cost of the 30" is worth it.
  • JarredWalton - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link

    I personally prefer one large LCD over two smaller LCDs. Working on large images in Photoshop, I can use all the resolution I can get. Splitting an image over two displays just isn't the same to me. That said, I know others that really like having two 24" LCDs. My dad is set up that way, so he can have web pages, documents, etc. on one side and spreadsheets, other web pages, and such on the other. In fact, my dad sometimes has both 24" LCDs in portrait mode, so he can have a virtual resolution of 2400x1920 and see long segments of text that way.

    Total cost of two 24" LCDs would be $900 to $1200 depending on brand (or $1800+ for two LaCie 324 LCDs). A single 30" would run at least $1000 I think (outside of used/refurbs), and some like the 3008WFP would cost as much as $2000. Total screen resolution and area is higher for two 24" LCDs: 12.5% more pixels and 28% more screen area. If you can live with the black back between the LCDs, two 24" LCDs is a more economical/flexible approach overall.
  • icthy - Saturday, May 3, 2008 - link

    Thanks. I'm tempted by the shear prettiness of one 30" monitor. But I tend to run Linux, and than use windows under Vmware. I suppose with two 24" monitors, I could have one Vmware-Windows display, and one for my Linux-computational stuff--although I don't know if the vmware drivers would support that.
  • KLC - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link

    Your review confirms my experience with the Dell 2408, it is a great monitor and also an excellent value for its performance. Just look at comparably sized NECs and LaCies to calibrate your value gauges. I got it for $599 with free shipping.

    I've read the comments about pink tinges and banding and on and on and on in hardware forums, like Jarred I've had no such problems with mine. I mostly use my system for photoshop, video editing, office apps and websurfing, no games so lag time doesn't matter to me.

    The ergonomics are also outstanding. You can easily adjust height, tilt, etc. And like all Dell monitors I think they've done a great job of industrial design. If you like all of your tech to mimic a Transformer you'll have to look elsewhere, but if you like something elegant and functional Dell has few that surpasss them.

    It does put out a lot of heat, it is very bright, too bright, out of the box and I still haven't been able to use my Spyder3 Pro to fix that to my satisfaction. I'm going to use Jarred's RGB settings and see how that goes.

    One mildly irritating thing, after playing around with the On Screen Display and the Spyder for several days the white contrast marking on the front panel buttons has completely worn off. Jarred, did you see any of that on your sample?

    But I have no buyer's remorse over this purchase, and that is something I don't experience very often.
  • JarredWalton - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link

    I haven't noticed any issues with the button labels wearing off, but then I might not be using them enough, or perhaps your fingertips have more oil than average and that's causing the loss. After the labels are gone, you can pretend to have a Samsung 2493HM and guess at which buttons do what until you get the layout memorized. :)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now