Acer 24" TFT Monitor Widescreen 1920x1200 under 200 quid delivered - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
Market leading Price on this Acer 24"TFT....

The Cheapest 24" TFT on the Web..

Stock in Today....

Features

* Resolution: 1920x1200
* Contrast: 1000:1
* Brightness: 400cd/m2
* Response: 5ms
* Colours: 16.7M (8 color bit) - (92%NTSC colour situation)
* VGA
* Viewing Angle: 160°/160°
* Pixel Pitch: 0.270mm
* Display Size: 547x352mm
* Silver
* Vista Compatible

Power

* Internal Power Supply
* Power: 90W
* Power Off: 1W
* Stanby: 2W

Dimensions/Wallmount

* Dimenesions: 577x457x219mm
* Weight: 9.1KG
* Vesa: 100 x 100 mm Wall Mountable

NO DVI, otherwise this is hot.

Good reviews in ebuyer. Read tomshardware.co.uk who reviewed it yesterday in a 24" roundup. It doesn't come top - but they think it cost's 600 euro, At approx 276 euro its a clear winner...
More From Ebuyer:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
stapsell Avatar
8y, 11m agoFound 8 years, 11 months ago
Options

All Comments

(97) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
Great price, personally i'd expect 24" to be too big for normal everyday use, I just bought a 22" and it took a while to get use to. Still more bang for your buck!
#2
Fantastic price, love 24" I think its the perfect size for home use. I moved from my 20" imac to one of the new 24" ones.
banned#3
Sorry peeps - but these have a pretty poor image quality.
#4
Repo
Sorry peeps - but these have a pretty poor image quality.

Are you sure? Have you seen it? (I havent)
The ebuyer feedback looks good, and tomshardware.co.uk seem to get good images. It is certainly bright.
Sure, it doesnt have DVI, but i cant tell the difference on my current monitor between DVI and VGA.
#5
Maybe he means at the max resolution everything will be too small on your computer, even jumping to 1280x1024 on my new vp930 from my previous dell 21" trinitron's 1024x768 strained my eyes a bit with how much smaller everything was. So then if you drop the resolution lower than the native 1920x1200 you will lose the sharpness in the image as the picture no longer fits 1:1 per pixel.
#6
quid, web, no dvi, am confused with the jargon
banned#7
I wouldn't make a comment like that without personal experience :) The only brand name monitor I've seen with worse image quality than this was the 22" Dell E228WFP. If you compare this with any reasonable quality screen e.g. Dell 2001FP or Dell 2007FPW then you can immediately see the difference in image quality. The backlighting is very even but the image is quite blurry and it's especially noticable around text.

Buy one if you want but be prepared to accept the lower quality or exercise your DSR rights :p
#8
Whatever you's say, this is the cheapest 24" around, and from a reputable brand. Hot.

[Even though I wouldn't buy due to no DVI!]
#9
DavidDickinson
Maybe he means at the max resolution everything will be too small on your computer, even jumping to 1280x1024 on my new vp930 from my previous dell 21" trinitron's 1024x768 strained my eyes a bit with how much smaller everything was. So then if you drop the resolution lower than the native 1920x1200 you will lose the sharpness in the image as the picture no longer fits 1:1 per pixel.


Have you tried Liquidview ? Great software that came free with an NEC flatpanel that I bought some years back, but can (IIRC) be purchased separately. It upscales everything, allowing it to be run at a higher resolution without everything being in tiny fonts etc. Windows does allow some adjustment of this itself ...
#10
good deal...

if you cant read stuff just increase the dpi font size thing in windows...
#11
I think cheap monitors are not worth it. Most of their IQ is nothing compared to the better panels.
#12
Great price for an LCD this size, cheapest I've seen anything similar is £260 I think.
It's not going to be the best quality, you get what you pay for, but for that price it's still a bargain!

I'm actually in the market for a new monitor, preferably 22" or 24", but it'd need HDMI and greater than 1080p resolution. If only this had DVI, then I'd be sold...
#13
22" Belinea from staples @ £129
or a 24" acer from ebuyer @ £199

Question is it worth paying an extra £70 for a fraction of an increase?

I DONT THINK SO !!!
#14
Kushan
Great price for an LCD this size, cheapest I've seen anything similar is £260 I think.
It's not going to be the best quality, you get what you pay for, but for that price it's still a bargain!

I'm actually in the market for a new monitor, preferably 22" or 24", but it'd need HDMI and greater than 1080p resolution. If only this had DVI, then I'd be sold...


You will need to get a 3007WFP or an Apple 30" then (2560x1600), because all 24s are 1920x1200 at most.

I have a 2407WFP-HC and it's a fantastic LCD. Worth spending £400 for a monitor which is 1000x better in quality. And no, I do not have any ghosting issues.
#15
Just for those not aware, those two inches extra gives you over half a million pixels extra. (For those who want extra desktop space)

22" has a res of 1650x1050 pixels = ~ 1.73 million pixels
24" has a res of 1920x1200 pixels = ~ 2.30 million pixels

For most people it won't matter too much, but for those after the highest resolution, the acer has a lot going for it at £198.

It really is amazing to see how much prices have gone down.
#16
horstachio
You will need to get a 3007WFP or an Apple 30" then (2560x1600), because all 24s are 1920x1200 at most.


1920x1200 is greater than 1080p ;)
#17
Great price, god damn awful piece of kit unless all you want to do some word and excel stuff on it.

For films, games etc, it's a shambles
#18
adam2116
22" Belinea from staples @ £129
or a 24" acer from ebuyer @ £199

Question is it worth paying an extra £70 for a fraction of an increase?

I DONT THINK SO !!!


Rubbish !!! The Acer is a higher resolution too.....which makes a [SIZE="4"]BIG[/SIZE] difference.

22" has a res of 1650x1050 pixels = ~ 1.73 million pixels
24" has a res of 1920x1200 pixels = ~ 2.30 million pixels :thumbsup:
#19
Kushan
1920x1200 is greater than 1080p ;)


Haha yeah, but you won't find a 1920x1080 PC LCD so assumed that he meant higher than 1920x1200. Was going to get a 3007WFP but it's too big.
#20
patmoore
Great price, god damn awful piece of kit unless all you want to do some word and excel stuff on it.

For films, games etc, it's a shambles


This is absolute Rubbish too !

I have 2 of the 26" versions of these ACER monitors and running games at 1920 x 1200 is AWSOME !!!! :thumbsup:

e.g. Crysis, COD4, Battlefield 2, etc on a 8600GTS running all on high. (except for Crysis which runs at 'Medium' ok)
#21
Mecoconuts
Rubbish !!! The Acer is a higher resolution too.....which makes a [SIZE="4"]BIG[/SIZE] difference.

22" has a res of 1650x1050 pixels = ~ 1.73 million pixels
24" has a res of 1920x1200 pixels = ~ 2.30 million pixels :thumbsup:


24" is better yes, so you can support 1080p videos without having to scale down.
#22
horstachio
Haha yeah, but you won't find a 1920x1080 PC LCD so assumed that he meant higher than 1920x1200. Was going to get a 3007WFP but it's too big.


Nah, I was referring to how a lot of them are 1280x1050 (just 30 pixels short!), which just wouldn't do.
#23
Mecoconuts
This is absolute Rubbish too !

I have 2 of the 26" versions of these ACER monitors and running games at 1920 x 1200 is AWSOME !!!! :thumbsup:


Well, these monitors will not be able to reproduce the colour ranges of higher priced LCDs. You may not notice if you play games, but in a 1080p Blueray film, you will and in any sort of photo editing.
#24
Mecoconuts
Rubbish !!! The Acer is a higher resolution too.....which makes a [SIZE="4"]BIG[/SIZE] difference.

22" has a res of 1650x1050 pixels = ~ 1.73 million pixels
24" has a res of 1920x1200 pixels = ~ 2.30 million pixels :thumbsup:


I disagree, it definately isnt paying an extra £70 quid for. Both the Acer and the Belinea are MONITORS not tv's and primarily most people would use them to run microsoft office, browse the web and so on. No matter what the resolution is they were not designed for gaming. If you are a true gaming enthusiast you would need a LCD TV with PC connectivity thats if you want the best of both worlds. A 22" would more than suffice most people, but if you have more money than sense or a think that paying an extra £70 for an extra 2" - then thts ur call!
#25
adam2116
22" Belinea from staples @ £129
or a 24" acer from ebuyer @ £199

Question is it worth paying an extra £70 for a fraction of an increase?

I DONT THINK SO !!!


I don't think you can judge, its not a fraction of an increase, have you even seen a 24 inch monitor? ;)
#26
adam2116
I disagree, it definately isnt paying an extra £70 quid for. Both the Acer and the Belinea are MONITORS not tv's and primarily most people would use them to run microsoft office, browse the web and so on. No matter what the resolution is they were not designed for gaming. If you are a true gaming enthusiast you would need a LCD TV with PC connectivity thats if you want the best of both worlds. A 22" would more than suffice most people, but if you have more money than sense or a think that paying an extra £70 for an extra 2" - then thts ur call!



Sorry, what? If you're a PC gamer, you'll use a PC monitor. This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but typical PC monitors can display far better than any TV will, a decent monitor will even give a top of the line HD-TV a run for it's money.
#27
adam2116
I disagree, it definately isnt paying an extra £70 quid for. Both the Acer and the Belinea are MONITORS not tv's and primarily most people would use them to run microsoft office, browse the web and so on. No matter what the resolution is they were not designed for gaming. If you are a true gaming enthusiast you would need a LCD TV with PC connectivity thats if you want the best of both worlds. A 22" would more than suffice most people, but if you have more money than sense or a think that paying an extra £70 for an extra 2" - then thts ur call!


Sorry mate but you're talking total BS. Get yourself clued up, people generally buy 22 - 24 inch screens FOR GAMES. Nobody outputs to TV through their graphics card these days, for want of a better term "That's so last week".

You'd have to be completely retarded (or have very poor eyesight) to buy a 22+ inch monitor for "microsoft office, abit of web browsing..." etc :roll:
#28
Kushan
Sorry, what? If you're a PC gamer, you'll use a PC monitor. This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but typical PC monitors can display far better than any TV will, a decent monitor will even give a top of the line HD-TV a run for it's money.


Wouldn't even bother mate...;) with comments like [SIZE="5"]"No matter what the resolution is they were not designed for gaming"[/SIZE]<- extremely ignorant stupid comment, you're not going to enlighten anyone ;)
#29
adam2116 at the end of the day it's all down to personal preference isn't it? I, like horstachio have INVESTED in the Dell 2407WFP-HC. I call it an investment because the build quality, 4 years Dell no-quibble onsite warranty, along with connectivity make it worth the £400 we've paid for them. The extra 2" makes a massive difference if running on the native 1920x1200 pixels for programs like Photoshop. The richness of the colour depth and sharpness of the screen makes it perfect for gaming, especially for those that go out and pay £300+ just for a graphics card!!

For anyone that wants a fairly good reliably branded 24" monitor though for everyday computing, I've got to agree that this deal is HOT!!

I take it that these monitors have a TN panel in them because of the price, does anyone know the panel type?
#30
robo989
Sorry mate but you're talking total BS. Get yourself clued up, people generally buy 22 - 24 inch screens FOR GAMES. Nobody outputs to TV through their graphics card these days, for want of a better term "That's so last week".

You'd have to be completely retarded (or have very poor eyesight) to buy a 22+ inch monitor for "microsoft office, abit of web browsing..." etc :roll:


There are many, many uses for a 24"+ LCD. Gaming is just one of them. Great screens for trading platforms, people with small flats using it as a "TV" also (I know a lot who do this), screen real estate is important to many, I love how I can span many pages of documents over my screen etc.

I take it from your uninformed statement that you have never set foot in a professional office before.

Edit: The gaming market is the least of a LCD manufacturer's market. Think corporations who buy tonnes at a time.
#31
olan_b
Whatever you's say, this is the cheapest 24" around, and from a reputable brand. Hot.

[Even though I wouldn't buy due to no DVI!]


ACER reputable?! like the 19" laptop screen that started with yellow stripes one day after the warranty expired, and eventually died completely?

Acer is cheap, that is all, i certainly wouldn't call them reputable.

and i won't buy without dvi (that rhymes!) not neccesarily for so-called better quality, but for two connectors.

think i'd go for a good 22" rather than a bad 24".
#32
Mecoconuts
This is absolute Rubbish too !

I have 2 of the 26" versions of these ACER monitors and running games at 1920 x 1200 is AWSOME !!!! :thumbsup:

e.g. Crysis, COD4, Battlefield 2, etc on a 8600GT running all on high.


Absoulte nonsense. The 8600GT struggles to run Source @ 1280x1024 on high. Even an 8800 Ultra couldn't run Crysis on high @ 1920x1200.
#33
Mecoconuts
This is absolute Rubbish too !

I have 2 of the 26" versions of these ACER monitors and running games at 1920 x 1200 is AWSOME !!!! :thumbsup:

e.g. Crysis, COD4, Battlefield 2, etc on a 8600GT running all on high.


2 things come to mind. I'm very picky about my screens and your comment is useless anyway, as your basing your opinions on a different model to the one being discussed.

oh and to the person before, it is a TN panel.
#34
The build quality on these budget LCDs are hillarious. Also the fact that many have dead pixels (no dead pixel guarantee) and made out of plastic that looks like it was adapted from a 99p plastic bin.
#35
Repo
I wouldn't make a comment like that without personal experience :) The only brand name monitor I've seen with worse image quality than this was the 22" Dell E228WFP.


Erm no. Dell's monitors are superb. I'm sorry if you've been unlucky but generally they're the ones you can rely on. My E228WFP is top notch, fair enough it's not the best but it's nowhere near as bad as you're making it out to be.
#36
To the guy saying 2" doesn't make any difference - has your girlfriend been trying to tell you this perchance? :giggle:

22 to 24 inch makes a massive difference imo. I have a 22" WS LG (up from a 17" regular Philips) and while it was certainly much bigger, 24" would have been much, much better.

To the guy who said TV's are better ... I lol at this quite hard. How ridiculous was this comment?!

To the guy with the 8600 GT ... oh dear ... you are lucky only one person has picked up on that one!
#37
thesilverfox
To the guy saying 2" doesn't make any difference - has your girlfriend been trying to tell you this perchance? :giggle:


HARSH! :-D

The only problem with a monitor this size is the fact that all games look **** if they aren't run on the native resolution. So, you always need to have a relatively high end graphics card with more vRAM. I've got an x1950 pro 512mb, it can run Crysis @ 1680x1050 on low and get about 30fps. Not good enough, but I only really play 1.6 and Source anyway so it's fine for now. But for those wanting to play new games I suggest buying an 8800GT or something with it, because you don't want to be running games on [email protected] on this monitor.
#38
Would love 1 of these to replace my 17" CRT!
#39
H3ath3n
HARSH! :-D

The only problem with a monitor this size is the fact that all games look **** if they aren't run on the native resolution. So, you always need to have a relatively high end graphics card with more vRAM. I've got an x1950 pro 512mb, it can run Crysis @ 1680x1050 on low and get about 30fps. Not good enough, but I only really play 1.6 and Source anyway so it's fine for now. But for those wanting to play new games I suggest buying an 8800GT or something with it, because you don't want to be running games on [email protected] on this monitor.


As true as that is, it's not a specific fault of this monitor, that applies to ALL 24" LCD's. In fact, it applies to LCD's in general as playing a game in a LOWER resolution than the monitor supports will also cause problems (can be a major headache with a lot of older games).
#40
Yeah I meant all 24" LCD's, and 22"s, 20"s and 19"s.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!