Gateway Launches Three LED-backlit Displays
by Balraj Sandhu on October 5, 2010 6:30 PM ESTGateway has launched three new ultra-slim LED-backlit displays. The FHX series boasts fast 2ms response times and are available as a 21.5” (FHX2152L) and 24” (FHX2402L) model with glossy black bezels. The FHD2303L has to make do with a 5ms response time and is only available as a 23” model with a transparent frame and attractive asymmetric stand.
All three models support a huge 12,000,000:1 (presumably dynamic) contrast ratio and media-friendly 1920x1080 full high definition resolution in 16:9 aspect ratio. They can all produce up to 16.7million colors at 250 nits of brightness. All models come with VGA and DVI (with HDCP) connectivity with the larger 23” and 24” models also carrying a HDMI interface – an interesting omission on the smaller model.
Gateway is also pushing the eco-friendly credentials as the new displays are composed of non-toxic materials and with LED-backlighting, these displays save up to 68% of the power used by conventional CCFL displays, thus achieving RoHS Energy Star qualifications.
All three displays will be available this month at $190 for the 21.5” model and $250 for the two larger models. Considering that makes the 24” FHX2402L with the faster response time the same price as the smaller, slower 23” FHD2303L, it seems the only decision is whether to buy the 24” model or the smaller 21.5” FHX2152L for $60 less, albeit without HDMI.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
98 Comments
View All Comments
Revdarian - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link
Sarcasm or he wants smaller pixels.I've seen some cases like that, /shrugs.
LancerVI - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link
This is a lot of nerd rage over a mini-article.....and I am a power user and I use a 24 in 1080p panel
1080p works fine for me. If you are into graphic design, CAD, video editing, fine, pay for your pixels; but a $250 LED LCD is good news, though I agree, the article is light on details and I would prefer a proper review. However gentlemen, Take it easy.
Lancer VI
Minion4Hire - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link
The real problem here is that manufacturers are trying to lower their own costs while offering an inferior product with more aggressive/ridiculous marketing. Lowering the overall resolution of a given panel size really doesn't offer any sort of improvement for any consumer segment. A $250 24" 16:10 panel really shouldn't be a difficult thing to find or an unreasonable thing to expect.Personally, I have a 24" 1920x1200 Dell IPS panel. I'm not into graphic design, CAD, etc... but I DO want a high quality panel, and I also like being able to rotate my screen on occasion; a shorter, wider screen would NOT improve said rotated experience in the least. If anything I would prefer a 16:11 aspect ratio. Width has a finite level of usefulness.
And yes, a review and not a product plug would be preferable.
Visual - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link
Sorry but "pay for your pixels" isn't quite the case, though.In cases when when both resolutions were made with the same type of panel (usually TN unfortunately), they used to cost the same. The reason for the common misconception that 1920x1200 screens are more expensive is that most of them were made with better panel types, not crappy TN.
Manufacturers really aren't saving up much by going for 1080 rows. They chose to do it because of the masses of clueless idiots that just need to hear the magic marketing speak "FullHD" and don't care for much else. Those are people that will look at the black bars on a 1200 pixel monitor and say "this is bad, the monitor is not as wide as it should be", and then are happily accepting a shorter monitor with the illusion that it's wider.
Anyone with a real clue will appreciate 1200 pixels more, there are many benefits to it. Even for movies, its better to have the extra space for a player GUI that doesn't hide parts of the movie, or for subtitle area. For everyday computer use you can fit more icons, more text, etc. For gaming, especially on a range of older titles, having the perfectly fitting 4:3 resolution 1600x1200 is a good bonus too. On a 1080p display, you'll generally have to go with crap like 1280x1024, which btw is 5:4, if the game requires a 4:3, and then either have it scaled to 1080 rows or have black bars not just at the sides but at top and bottom as well - either way is quite terrible. Yes, 1440x1080 is a perfect fit in that case, but it wasn't ever a commonly used resolution and so isn't an option in a lot of games.
Basically, it comes down to "more is better" really.
TegiriNenashi - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link
Amen. I'm not sure where Hollywood made more damage: forcing down this ridiculous 2.31:1 aspect ratio (which eventually gave rise to 16:10 "compromise"), or spreading that silly global warming myth.silat - Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - link
Geezus really? Global warming myth?Cod the repubes have finally done it.
They have lowered the IQ's of the common CON.
That con will vote against their own best interests everytime Faux tells them to. :)
agent2099 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link
At this price it must be a TN panel. This should be mentioned in the first paragraph of the article in my opinion.odin607 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link
got me @ neat design+ledlost me @ 1920x1080 full high definition resolution in 16:9 aspect ratio
=(
kawatwo - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link
Looks like good bang for the buck. 1080P is fine for gaming and web browsing. I have a 24 inch 19x12 FHD that has been amazing. Viewing angles could be slightly better but other than that I love it. I do wish GW would do a 120HZ 19x12 edition however as an update to the old FHD 24 with the height and rotation etc for another 100 bucks.effingee - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link
Two years ago, $250 bought me a 19" Samsung @ 1440x900. Now, even with inflation, it can buy me a 24" @ 1920x1080. Looks like an improvement to me.In this price range, they're also catering to people like myself who use it as a TV as well as a monitor.