Firstly, i didn't mean to cause offence and people fork out lots of money on screens but i do feel that theres still no perfect "allround" lcd's right now.
I've actually seen an dell 2007wfp a few weeks back at a friends and its definitely far laggier than the 226bw that i had and it felt to me in a really similar way to the dell 2407wfp. However, it was a really sharp screen that looked very accurate, very colourful and had great viewing angles, without doubt it'd be perfect in all other types of games just as the 2407 is.
I Know the "blah blah ms" thing is rubbish but i do believe that overdriven tn-panels are a long way ahead for first person shooters still. I must say I don't feel digitalversus is very accurate at all tbh. They do all these silly tests but the reason i refered to the problem as "laggier" rather than less ghosty is because i'm not entirely sure what it is. I get the feeling its not just afterglow or tearing thats the problem its like some mystical force that makes LCD's pants on first person shooters
maybe its input lag? or some other sort of lag thats not even been discussed yet?
You'll get some people who will say "the dell 2407wfp is great for first person shooters, no ghosting at all". Its an opinion that'll vary drastically and different people will notice different things.
Only lcd i've not tried is the NEC but i've read nothing in its specs to suggest to me it'd be any better than say...the 2007wfp in these sort of games. If you play racing games online then ofcourse it'll perform great on that sort of game, my dell 2407wfp is fantastic on pro evo / racing games etc etc, no noticable afterglow whatsoever. Also UT2003 has uncapped fps and if you have a recent rig your fps is probably in the hundreds which helps to cover up the tearing bigtime. On a game with a 60fps cap like quake4 or any quake4 engine based games it'd probably fair far worse.
I really do think all this "measuring red cars going across a screen and taking a picture of the delay" is the most stupid thing. It tests the theory behind it but does nothing to prove / describe how particular monitors feel on certain games.
Putting it in more useful practice...Say on quake 3/4 over the course of 30 mins or however long i'd expect to rail @
50-60% on a CRT
40-50% on a 226bw
30-40% on any non-tn panel / (e.g. dell 2407wfp)
I'd expect the NEC to be similar to a dell/benq etc etc from reading about them.
Again, these non-tn panels with super-duper colours are fantastic for almost any type of game but there really is a question mark over them for competitive gaming on first person shooters. I'd obviously prefer say...a 2007wfp over a samsung 226bw if i was into world of warcraft / videos / browsing. Its just down to taste.
I agree with other posts recently saying "just stick with a CRT as its a disadvantage otherwise" as tbh this is the bottom line.
I recall my 226bw which i sold being vastly better. None of the 24"'s or above are likely to fair any better.
I've played fps games for prize money in top teams and know exactly what i'm on about when it comes to this (even if I don't know much else 