Gateway 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.

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • The_AC - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    I'm planning on buying a 24", 1920x1200, PVA or IPS, standard-gamut monitor after Christmas. This should be one of the most common monitors out there, but it's really hard to find. My choices are basically a used Dell 2407wfp off ebay, or a new Dell u2410 (whch has wide gamut, but can be set in a standard gamut mode (but this adds 10ms of response time)).

    Mostly due to consumers who are too lazy to look up moniter-ralated terms in wikipedia (the average user thinks wide gamut is a good thing, or thinks that >3000:1 contrast ratios are physically possible), the current monitor market is abysmal.
  • fnord123 - Friday, October 8, 2010 - link

    I have a Dell 20" monitor that is 1600x1200. I paid something like $400 for it around 2004 from

    I have a LG 24" widescreen monitor, it is 1920x1200. I paid about $249 for it in 2008 at Fry's electronics.

    There is no way I will buy any monitor which reduces my resolution. I don't care if it is LED-backlit, has a tilt/swivel, USB3 hub built in, etc. The primary function of a monitor is to display stuff - and if a monitor from 2010 cannot do that at at least as high a resolution as my older monitors, then I am sticking with my older monitors. Too bad too, because I'd like to get a LED backlit monitor.

    To the monitor manufacturers: You are leaving money on the table by ignoring those of us who want higher resolutions. I am very vocal to everyone I know to avoid all "1080p" monitors, letting them know it is an inferior product and a marketing gimmick.

    To Anand: Please provide more reviews for monitors that have higher vertical resolution than 1080p, which is a 2000-2002-level LCD resolution.
  • Wolfpup - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link

    Okay, so presumably it's TN, and IPS would make it truly perfect, BUT still it's competitive with Dell's G2410H (I think that's the model), but adds an HDMI port on top of the VGA and DVI, making it preferable.

    But I feel like there must be a catch...can Acer make solid monitors? I have no idea. The Dells are matte, and look fantastic for TN panels (though I wish Dell would offer their high end one with LED lighting).
  • slypher10 - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link

    Hey and if its now too much to ask, can u give an heads up when these are at retailers...
  • x0rg - Wednesday, November 3, 2010 - link

    Good to see LED monitors but TN panels suck.
  • tomoyo - Thursday, December 9, 2010 - link

    When I saw the headline, my first hope was to actually have something non-tn-film and non-16:9. Nope both fears realized as usual. All the LCD plants have given up on any semblance of quality. At least we're finally getting LED backlights, but in tradeoff, we lose all 4:3 and 16:10, we lose almost all the non-tn-film. We lose good ergonomic stands. We lose wide viewing angels. Thanks for nothing guys.
  • derppy - Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - link

    I'm totally with all the people who don't want monitors with lower resolution. I got a 24" display about two years ago and all of them were 1920x1200. Now I'm looking for a better monitor of same size (30" is still waaaay too expensive), but all I see is 16:9 monitors with less pixels. Feels like technology took a step backwards in the last two years.

    I'm afraid it has something to do with the rise and marketing of full-hd televisions. People think that "full-hd 1080p" means quality and the people running the companies know that.

    I actually know a few people who would more likely buy a monitor that states "FULL-HD" than "2560x1600", even if they cost the same.

    Someone already suggested that we start speaking about megapixels, rather than resolution. I couldn't agree more.

    Customers should compare 2.0 megapixel, 2.3 megapixel and 4.0 megapixel monitors. Then they would probably understand that the monitor next to fancy "full-hd" display actually has two times the pixels.
  • GilardiLDG - Friday, December 5, 2014 - link

    US Residents Who Bought Gateway 30" XHD3000 Monitors Can Receive $195 From a Settlement!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now