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

  • ComputerGuy2006 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Who cares?

    A decade ago I was using 1920x1440, and this states "1920x1080 full high definition" likes it a good thing? Took a decade to lose 360 pixels?

    Why is anand now plagued with all these stupid products and articles. I miss the old days when new post on anand meant something exiting, not some lame spam post 4 times out of 5.
  • spathotan - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Quit whining. News flash; not every product on the market is designed for YOU. Resolution is relative to the size of the screen, that's all that matters. Who cares you say? How about who cares what resolution monitor you were using a decade ago, its a moot point.
  • kmmatney - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    I take it yuo've never used a 1920 x 1200 display before. I have both 1080p and a 1920 x 1200 monitors within a few feet of each other. The 1080p size sucks in comparision - its as simple as that.
  • yh125d - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    It's completely a matter of opinion - its as simple as that. Just because *you* prefer 1920x1200 for your computer doesn't mean everyone does or it is a superior size. I have used both for a long time and I prefer 1920x1080, even though it means less vertical lines. To each his own.
  • vol7ron - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    You all are lucky. I'm still on a pair of 22s each at 1680x1050. I don't mind this resolution at all, though a little wider would be nicer when using the snap feature in Win7.
  • Justin Time - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    I also find 22" 1680x1050 a perfect size.

    I can actually read the text on the screen, and 16:9 video fits while allowing for the chrome of most browsers, Windows Taskbar etc.
  • softdrinkviking - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    I agree. It's okay to state a preference, but you shouldn't act like the whole world agrees with you. The whole world does not agree with you, no matter who you are, about what is "better." I suppose some folks think if they just ignore that fact, then it will no longer be true. I think they usually called "fanatics."
  • Whole World - Thursday, November 24, 2011 - link

    I do agree with him!
  • DarkUltra - Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - link

    What exactly do you prefer for less vertical resolution? With more vertical space you can tile more windows on your desktop and still have them work OK. Some programs these days are a bit big and bloated requiring a lot of vertical space. Windows 7 with its double-sized task bar and these new ribbon menus also prefer the extra space.

    If you are going to have such a wide monitor on your desktop, why not get some extra vertical space? It seems all the monitor manufacturers marketing departements all have agreed that FullHD is > 1920x1200 on computer use, but most people actually prefer the extra 120 pixels.
  • orthancstone - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    This is the same slippery slope that hard drive manufacturers used to justify fooling the public with respect to what a GB is in terms of actual bytes. By forcing all new products to the "new standard" and letting the marketing do the work to convince the public "it's not what you think!" (aka "FullHD! 1080p!" speak with respect to these monitors), we end up with inferior products with little to no recourse to change things back to what they should be.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now