Originally Posted by andrepeterhill
An interesting Tom's Hardware article about why LCD response time ratings are basically meaningless ... http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20031105/
, IMO when shopping for an LCD make shure you check out detailed reviews in magazines/online and even look at end-user comments before you buy, better still do your own comparison by doing a physical inspection in-store. Case in point - the 9860's LCD is rated at only 25ms response time but exhibits no noticeable ghosting, this said the one thing that all LCDs suffer from (regardless of response time) is tearing due to the vertical refresh rate not being able to keep up with fast moving objects in 3D games (enabling vsync in the video drivers or the game settings does help to mitigate this to some extent).
Response time is definitely an important factor when choosing a gaming monitor. Response time ratings are by no means meaningless. Yes they can be misleading depending on how the response time is rated, but do not make the mistake as writing response time off as meaningless.
Also, I own a 9860 with its 25 ms LCD. Having seen many LCD's beforehand including those of higher performance I can say safely that there is most definitely visible ghosting on the 9860's screen. And yes, I have properly configured all graphical settings, GPU settings, and am running in a proper environment. Is the ghosting horrible? No. Is it noticeable to the average user? Most likely, no. In fact, it is probably not worth bringing up as a serious issue. If you're a very competitive gamer who plays very fast paced games with high ammounts of motion, you will notice the difference. Don't get me wrong; the 9860 packs a beautiful screen, however, there is definitely ghosting occuring.
Before the 9860, I was running on a CRT 22" 1280x1024 @ 115 Hz refresh rate. That may give you an idea of what I was accustomed to before.