budget monitor for gaming

All company's lie on the specs.  If if makes you feel better to know which one has less input lag check out reviews by people you trust and by real people on gaming forums.  I personally find all modern LCDs to have pretty much similar average input lag.  I only time notice the input lag is on a few arcade games (MAME), FPS don't bother me.  Bullet hell shooters are far more important to have better response times than FPS.  If the specs were true, then it still wouldn't matter that much.  3ms difference is still not enough to react any quicker.  Get which ever one is cheaper, or has better features (LED backlight is a nice feature if it has it).  High resoultion is also better feature.  If you want to be anal retentive about response times, pick up a 15-19" SyncMaster CRT and be happy with it (Still the best picture for Free-$15, if CRTs don't give you headaches).  They are almost the same size, I wouldn't worry about the 2/3" difference. Also be sure that the 360 has the ablity to output the native resoultion to the monitor or it won't be as sharp as it should be and you'll be unhappy with your new monitor.  (The 360 doesn't support all resoultions, and I think it's different depending on which port (HDMI or VGA) you use as well).

UPDATE:  I see the VH242H has the ablity to display the correct aspect ratio (I don't know if the other one can do the same).  I personally find this a valuable feature.

GtG time will barely matter, as the above poster said, it's the response time that does. LCDs are usually compared against CRTs in response time, but it will not make a huge difference. Find one you like the look of, gets good reviews, and is in your budget.

I personally use have a BenQ G2420 which measures decently in terms of specs, but the most important thing was that I bought it for $190 ONE YEAR ago, and I live in Australia. It's probably the best bang/buck purchase I've ever made, but now I prefer my Dell U2311H for gaming as the colour is so much prettier, despite measuring worse for gaming. I don't actually care about doing well in COD, and monitor speed doesn't matter in another game I play (no AU servers, 200 ping; I can play at 500 ping).

I'd use neither. The Samsung P series monitors are pretty solid, and have alot of flexability. I use a Samsung P2370HD, and the response time and input lag are perfectly fine for XBox games. Acts as a TV, consol monitor, and a PC monitor all in one. Has lots of cool audio inputs and outputs too (Optical out, 3.5mm in, 3.5mm volume controlled out, etc). I have bought 3 online ranging from $180 (lightly used) to $230 (new). Really no difference between the new and used ones at all.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Samsung-23-LCD-HDTV-1080p-Flat-Panel-Monitor-P2370HD-/130444000804?pt=Televisions&hash=item1e5f117e24

I used to be a MLG top 8 4v4 player for Halo 2, as well as a top 32 FFA player, and now play MW2 and CoD4 for fun. Take my word for it.

Take a look at www.ecost.com they do a lot of refurb stuff and their prices are excellent. I've bought a bunch of stuff from them, including 2 TVs and I've had no problems with Quality or service.

I'd always pop over to maximumpc.com  Here's the link to Monitors:

http://www.maximumpc.com/articles/reviews/hardware/monitors

I agree that response time matters very little: it's input lag that you need to be worried about. My old Albatron L17ASD monitor had a 25ms response but I found that my Viewsonic CRT had noticeably worse ghosting- yes, an old off-brand LCD beat out a CRT in real-world visible ghosting. Yet I never had any issues gaming with either monitor as they both had very little input lag. I'd much rather have a display with a 20ms response time and a 15ms input lag than a display with a 2ms response and 70ms lag.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aBathingGrape 

and how can i find out the input lag times for monitors, or is there no real way of getting that information?

People tend to test that by using a CRT (no input lag), connected to the same input.  Both displays are setup to be mirrored, and using a still camera (with a fast shutter speed).  Using a stop watch that shows 000ms, and taking several pictures where you can clearly see both screens and subtract the difference.  That's typically how I do it.  If I find a link to an tutorial I'll post it later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCC 

I agree that response time matters very little: it's input lag that you need to be worried about. My old Albatron monitor had a 25ms response but I found that my Viewsonic CRT had noticeably worse ghosting- yes, an old off-brand LCD beat out a CRT in real-world visible ghosting. Yet I never had any issues gaming with either monitor as they both had very little input lag. I'd much rather have a display with a 20ms response time and a 15ms input lag than a display with a 2ms response and 70ms lag.

I know phosphors will glow for a slight bit longer then it's been stimulated by the electron gun.  You sure it's not a bit of persistence of vision that's tricking you?

 

I guess I'm still fond of CRTs, that and you can pick up a ton of high quality ones for under $15 (Still a pretty good price, even though LCDs are common place).  I will agree about the input lag being more important than response times.  It's only of the annoying things about LCDs that still annoy me to no end (lipsync always seams constantly off (even at 15-20ms input lag)).

Probably just a cheap CRT. I remember the dxdiag bouncing white box/black background test showed a huge trail about an inch long on that particular monitor. CRTs are always a good choice if you have the desk space and your eyes aren't bothered by them.

Heh so true.  Some are capable of 1600x1200 or even higher resolutions and some even have high refresh rates [can display more fps if the game and computer allows] (which is still pretty decent now days).  It's also the sound of them refreshing the image that cause some people headaches, not just flicker of the slower refreshing ones set to a high resolution [which also causes eye strain].  If you have the space they are cheap and effective, plus there is still enough of them if it breaks it's cheap and easy to replace.  Probably should start a separate thread to continue the tangent, rather here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aBathingGrape 

Im down to choosing between these two monitors at the moment:

 

a samsung 24" P2450H link: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001378

 

and an asus 23" VH236H link: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236059

 

the specs are similar, its just seems to be down to whether I want to pay a bit more for a screen that is 1" larger.  Does anyone have any recommendations between these two monitors based on experience with these brands or monitors in particular?  thanks.

I have the Samsung 26" (actually 25.5") that came out a few years back which has a 5ms response time. Never noticed any ghosting, beautiful picture, used it for my PS3 via HDMI (before I got my 52" Sony Bravia, /drool...). My affordable/not-too-big 1080p option, although it was a little pricey at 550/600 dollars. Oh and a 25.5" widescreen monitor is bigger than you think it would be but you get used to it and really appreciate the size.

Anyway, never had any problems whatsoever. I go after Samsung and ASUS products whenever I can for their standards and build quality (all manufacturers have issues/complaints so you really have to research/use grains of salt of course).

Edit: One thing when I was in the market for this, I went to Best Buy and found my model on display which really helped as I could see how picture quality, etc. was vastly superior (imo) to the competition. I realize that's not the way you should do things as store displays are trying to get you to buy the most expensive unit or whatever but it allowed me to know what a specific monitor's display was capable of.

With the Samsung and Bravia that was the most clear, sharp, colorful picture in comparison to others which were grainy and less desireable to my taste.

Hope that helps.