Is this one better than a 8800GT? Because i've been trying to get the GT and it's out of stock everywhere so i could buy this since the price difference is like 100 Euros.

@vox984

Think back to 1995. At the time we had DOS games and windows 3.1. But of course, you couldn't multitask at all. Win3.1 was unusable as a gaming platform because drawing through the win32 GDI api was dog slow. So games were written to run in dos mode, you couldn't put the game in a window and check your email, etc. Then Win95 came out, and it supported directX so games could get at the video hardware and it supported pre-emptive multitasking which was critcical for writing a very time/timing sensitive application like a game... but there was still a huge problem. Games still ran faster in dos with less resources. DirectX and preemptive multitasking was good, but you still had windows running in the background sucking up cpu cycles and holding onto a big chunk of RAM. So it was slower, and gamers didn't see any improvement in graphics.

DirectX was a huge success because of its universal support for all sound, video and other gaming peripherals. You folks remember the DOS days,
c:\rott>sndsetup.exe > select sound card (sound blaster prof/sound blaster 16/etc ..)> select IRQ DMA channels etc ...
Thank God for Dos/4GW otherwise we had to make boot disks for every game setting conventional ram, EMS/XMS etc...
Windows 95 slowly but steadily removed the excess baggage involved into playing games. Windows 95's interface was a lot easier to use and more accessible. Once DirectX hit version 3 and AGP Graphics cards came out with native Win95 drivers games started to look better and work faster in Windows 95.
There is no way you can compare Win XP to DOS. DOS to Win95 was a revolution. XP to Vista is an unproven mutant hybrid.

<i>Once DirectX hit version 3 and AGP Graphics cards came out with native Win95 drivers games started to look better and work faster in Windows 95.
There is no way you can compare Win XP to DOS. DOS to Win95 was a revolution. XP to Vista is an unproven mutant hybrid.</i>

 

DirectX 3 game out in mid 1996. And only at that point games -started- to look better etc in 95. You see what I'm saying, two full versions of DirectX, and Windows 95 itself was re-released as "OSR2" with USB support it prior to games not totally sucking in it.

 

 

 

 

 

Looking at that example again, I wonder if you would suggest they upgrade to Vista since they are looking to utilize multitasking? Personally I think this is a horrible fit for a business, particularly one that already has XP licenses that they are satisfied with.

Uh. No. I wouldn't suggest they upgrade to Vista. In fact I wouldn't recommend anyone upgrade to Vista. I don't think its worth it.

However, when its time to buy a new computer, getting one with Vista makes decent sense. If that time is now, and you don't need to hold onto XP for compatibility reasons I would recommend Vista. And if you are buying a new computer now, then putting a directX10 card into it is wise; and its not hard to reach... even the new Intel Integrated G35 can do it.

 Ok, there seems to be a miscommunication here because I have tried to get this point across and it seems like you are missing it. The basic idea is that people with multiple video clips going in final cut with itunes, etc, etc...aren't building their PCs the same way as a gamer. Gamers build their PCs for what they will do the most with them and that is of course gaming.

Right. There is a disconnect. I'm saying DirectX10 is important for the desktop. Its no worse for single-task gaming than DX9 is. (Well that's not quite true DX10 is taking a performance hit, but I'm saying it worth taking a minor performance hit given the desktop benefits, and the fact that directX10 and the drivers will improve; i think at this point dx9 is a dead end.) If your a hard-core gamer spending $3k on a rig, and will buy another one in 6 months, by all mean buy XP, directx9, and c2d EE and enjoy your framerate uberness.

But if your a value-gamer aiming at 1k-2k rig and unlikely to upgrade for 2 years, directx10 on Vista is the better proposition. It will last you longer, and the performance is likely to get better as the dx10 drivers continue to mature.

So I have to ask what itunes and final cut have to do with gaming? I also wonder what kind of things iTunes is doing that would even remotely task modern cards...even with final cut going crazy in the background. If anything iTunes is an insignificant factor and Final Cut is the source of the real workload in that example.

iTunes coverflow, or 3d visualization of music can both benefit from hardware acceleration. The point was that Vista (or OSX or Linux) can support hardware acceleration in multiple windows at the same time, along with the desktop itself. GPU multitasking is a key part of how it acheives those effects.

How does it affect gamers? First it doesn't really hurt them. And 2nd the ability to run games in a window at full acceleration and interact with other (possibly hardware accelerated) applications at the same time is handy, even for gamers. I play warcraft and have itunes, browsers, and so forth all running at the same time, for example. Sometimes I'll even watch a movie while soloing in warcraft. XP doesn't do this terribly well.

 No, the future is tomorrow. What you are saying is the untranslated advertising propaganda...

No the future is now. OSX and Linux have had this ability for a while now. GPU multitasking in Vista is a -good thing- and its catch up with the other desktop OSes.

The desktop *shouldn't* be a GPU taxing application...it ***can*** be done in a way that is as slick and streamlined as any desktop out there and without the resource requirements. But that doesn't sell hardware, and it doesn't help them reinforce the business model I translated above.

Its not GPU taxxing, in the same way that a game is. It just needs the right drivers. Like I said, Mac's can ALREADY do this with "low end cards", and even Vista is satisfied with new Intel Integrated graphics.

The problem was that Microsoft to "bundled" GPU multitasking with DirectX10, because nearly any card made in the last 3 to 4 years, including integrated stuff, can handle the GPU rendering/multitasking requirements of the Vista desktop. And if they released directx10 drivers for those cards, you could use them and benefit from gpu multitasking. However, they can't really release DX10 drivers, because of some of the OTHER technical requirements of DirectX10 can't be satisfied... e.g. part of directx10 is the abolishment of capability bits, and directx10 also requires the drm stuff... and so they can't even just not support those "features".

I understand why microsoft did it. DX10 is a 'clean slate'. They needed a new driver model to support gpu multitasking, and DRM. And abolishing capability bits at this point to make life better for developers was a good idea too.

BUT doing them all at once made backporting gpu multitasking to directx9 cards an issue.

But your proposition really is one of "pay now for what you will get later...see look at how it worked in the past". Consumers care about where the technology is when they buy it.

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying "don't -cling- to the past and reject directx10". It's definately the case that directX10 isn't a compelling upgrade for gamers today. But the -desktop- needs to take this step to directX. And its silly for gamers to trash it.

I don't get how you can say "gpu multitasking doesn't require a state of the art card. It just requires an os kernel and graphics system that CAN do it." and not realize how much that clashes with the reality of the end user Vista experience?

The confusion arises from the fact that you -do- need a card with directx10, but a directx10 card does not have to be an expensive monster powerhouse. The new intel g35 integrated chipset for example will do nicely. The problem arises from the fact that most low end cards are still directx9, and so the experience is worse than it should be. As i said before, a lot of these older directx9 cards are powerful enough, and would work well if they had directx10 drivers... but they don't, and can't. (thanks to the capability bits issue, and the drm issues for example)

 When MS gets this down to the point that it is useful and it actually provides benefit to the customer is when the customer will be interested. I don't buy the idea that because we are in the tough years of the OS cycle and history says things will be ok (which I actually disagree with but thats a whole other argument) we should stick with them regardless of how illogical it is and it will be ok again!

Vista does provide benefit to the consumer.

GPU multitasking is an important step forward, because it allows us to have applications like final cut pro, OSX-like User Interfaces, and so on. Consumers do want that.

Moving 64-bit memory addressability into the mainstream is also a crucial step forward. Vista x64 may still be the minority, but its not the bastard half-brother with almost no driver support that XPx64 is. 

Getting rid of the administrator as default, requiring escalation to write to the windows system folder and other security features are also all crucial steps windows had to make, but broke a lot of applications. etc. Security is a hard sell, especially when it breaks stuff. But its a necessary step.

And I agree the hardware requirements, and backwards compatibility issues make an immediate upgrade un-compelling in the extreme, and I don't suggest anyone upgrade. But rather, look at vista in the same way we looked at 95 on launch. It wasn't compelling for gamer's at all when it launched. It wasn't compelling for businesses either. But it was compelling for its desktop. And it was crucial we move to a pre-emptive multitasked 32-bit OS. It laid the ground work for the future.

If MS believes in its vision then they can justify making the investment and they will be vindicated when their advancements blow people away. But when Vista can hardly muster a stiff breeze I don't think it is hard to see why people are taking a pass on this one.

Give it time. I'm not saying you should buy it today, and you definitely shouldn't upgrade an existing machine to use it. But it does take windows an important step forward, and when you are buying your next machine, its not like you have to spend extra to support it, and at that point it is a decent value proposition. 

 

@vux,

 Ok well I had a responce written up but it was eaten by the forum Nazis.  So lets just boil this down to the basics: 

Vista & DX10 are a package along with the good and the bad.  You don't get to pick and choose which parts you get so consumers look at it as a whole.  Current adoption rates show that this package is not appealing.  I don't know that anything more needs to be said...

As for PC gamers upgrading every 2 years for $1k to $2k.....holy crap!  Thats insane! I can build a complete gaming experience for the the low end of that kind of money! 

Guts: 

4GB DDR2 800 (timings: 4-4-4-12) -  $77.98
GIGABYTE nForce 570 SLI - Socket AM2 -  $96.60
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (2x1MB L2 Cache) -  $149.99
eVGA 8800GT 512MB - $265.83
OCZ GameXStream 700W PSU -  $99.99
Case w/ 80mm & 120mm Fans-  $34.99
320GB Hard Drive - $90.28
Sound Blaster Audigy SE - $32.68
Lite-ON DVD/CD Burner - $37.99

Peripherals: 

22" Monitor (2ms, 1000:1, 1680x1050 native) - $249.58
THX Certified 5.1 Surround Sound System - $153.70
Mouse - ~$30
Keyboard - ~$10

Total Price of Guts:	$886.33
Total Price of Peripherals	$443.28
Total Price:	$1,329.61
(All prices include shipping and rebates)

 NOTES*: 

1) It might be worth it if you plan to keep the system into the 64-bit era to pay a bit extra for 2x2GB on memory instead of 4x1GB in order to keep DIMM slots open for later upgrades.

2) The system was purchased with SLI in mind.  A few years down the road you can purchase a (by then) much cheaper 8800GT and slap it in the second SLI slot and you don't have to worry about your PSU putzing out on you either.  Also it is worth noting the PSU is 80+ certified meaning it is power efficient.

3)  The speakers and Monitor are purchases you will make probably once every 10-15 years if not longer.  For that reason they are typically worth the money because they will always be able to move to your next computer.  In that regard this price is somewhat inflated for the purposes of saying a gamer needs to spend 'x' amount every 'y' years. 

4) Really the design of the computer is such that a few small upgrades can allow it to survive probably 3-4 years before a full upgrade is a reasonable option.  When you do upgrade it is likely that the case, PSU, hard drive, sound card, and optical drive will all be able to move with.  As a result the cost of a full upgrade is reduced by a fair amount.

 

That is the type of computer I would build for someone who wanted a very nice gaming experience. 

 

 

Vista & DX10 are a package along with the good and the bad.  You don't get to pick and choose which parts you get so consumers look at it as a whole.  Current adoption rates show that this package is not appealing.  I don't know that anything more needs to be said...

I think the biggest issue with Vista is that its not really something one upgrades too. Its too new for mass business adoption - they NEVER upgrade in the first year or two. Hell, some of them are still clinging to windows 2000. 

But new computers being sold to consumers, including gamers, are predominantly loaded with Vista. And that's all I really expect.

As for the PC you built spec'd. Well...first my 1k to 2k was targeting -gamers- not people trying to scrimp together a PC that can run games. And simultaneously, not idiots who buy the bleeding edge. But people who choose parts because they are the best value, not necessarily the cheapest.

In your system for example:

1) $77 for 4GB RAM is what kensington value ram? Its alright, but for a bit more you can get something overclocks well. And overclocking is how get fantastic value out of an inexpensive system.

2) the mobo... no complaints

3) cpu...no complaints. I'm partial to the intel chipset and C2D/C2Q, which I think are the better chips. Lower power consumption, lower heat - means quieter operation, etc. So my spec would run 50-100 more here.

4) video card - no complaints

5) p/s probably overkill, even if your planning SLI, but no complaints. Its nice that you didn't run with one of those $20 p-o-s units. props for that.

4)  ick. I grant that $35 dollar case runs just as fast as a $70 one... but I like a little quality and style. I don't go in for those $250 cases, but I appreciate a good aluminum build that's solid with no burrs, and better access to the drive cage etc. But whatever, I'll leave it alone.

5) 320GB? I wouldn't spec less than 500GB given that its only 10 dollars more.

6) soundblaster audigy se?  On a scrimper system I'd just run onboard sound; while if someone is willing to pay extra for sound, I'd probably spec something a littler higher end, with digital connectors, and the newest chipset. (Not the 'xtreme gamers fatal1ty elite platinum plus' but something lower down in the same family.)

7) LiteOn budget drive - ick. Noisy cheap drives. Functional, but for $12 more you can move into something much better made. 

8) no operating system? Linux is great and all, but this is a gamer's PC right? I think you'll need to budget at least another hundred or so, say $130 (that'll get you into XP Pro or Vista Home Premium).

9) $30 mouse, $10 keyboard? wow. yeah, you can pay that much, but they suck. Ok, yeah, sure, if your scrimping they'll service. But a half decent keyboard is $30+, and a good gaming mouse $50+. Those high precision laser mice from Razer or even Logitech are worth it. The buttons click better, the scroll wheel moves better, there's just no comparison.

10) I'm not sure I agree with your theory about not buying a new monitor for 15 years. Are you using a 15 year old monitor? I upgraded from 15" CRT to a 17" CRT to a 19" CRT to a 19" LCD to a 22" LCD in the last 10 years. And a 22" at 249? I'd have a tough time choosing a 20" at that price that I'd consider to be good quality.

11) Speakers - yeah I agree one good set will last a while.

12) aftermarket heat sink/fan. boost your ability to overclock and bring the noise down at the same time.

Your PC spec is what I'd call decidedly adequate. Its not bad, and you've covered the most important areas to get excellent framerate, but you've cut all the extras, and sacrificed on quality on the peripherals, and while that won't affect framerare or image quality it will impact the enjoyment of your system. For just a few hundred more you can get a PC that's virtually silent, with premium peripherals, in a well built attractive case, with the potential to overclock. If I had $1000 ($880+ Windows) to spend I'd buy what you spec'd. If I had $1400 to spend, I'd buy what I spec'd.

vux984 said: Vista & DX10 are a package along with the good and the bad. You don't get to pick and choose which parts you get so consumers look at it as a whole. Current adoption rates show that this package is not appealing. I don't know that anything more needs to be said... I think the biggest issue with Vista is that its not really something one upgrades too. Its too new for mass business adoption - they NEVER upgrade in the first year or two. Hell, some of them are still clinging to windows 2000. But new computers being sold to consumers, including gamers, are predominantly loaded with Vista. And that's all I really expect. As for the PC you built spec'd. Well...first my 1k to 2k was targeting -gamers- not people trying to scrimp together a PC that can run games. And simultaneously, not idiots who buy the bleeding edge. But people who choose parts because they are the best value, not necessarily the cheapest. In your system for example: 1) $77 for 4GB RAM is what kensington value ram? Its alright, but for a bit more you can get something overclocks well. And overclocking is how get fantastic value out of an inexpensive system. 2) the mobo... no complaints 3) cpu...no complaints. I'm partial to the intel chipset and C2D/C2Q, which I think are the better chips. Lower power consumption, lower heat - means quieter operation, etc. So my spec would run 50-100 more here. 4) video card - no complaints 5) p/s probably overkill, even if your planning SLI, but no complaints. Its nice that you didn't run with one of those $20 p-o-s units. props for that. 4) ick. I grant that $35 dollar case runs just as fast as a $70 one... but I like a little quality and style. I don't go in for those $250 cases, but I appreciate a good aluminum build that's solid with no burrs, and better access to the drive cage etc. But whatever, I'll leave it alone. 5) 320GB? I wouldn't spec less than 500GB given that its only 10 dollars more. 6) soundblaster audigy se? On a scrimper system I'd just run onboard sound; while if someone is willing to pay extra for sound, I'd probably spec something a littler higher end, with digital connectors, and the newest chipset. (Not the 'xtreme gamers fatal1ty elite platinum plus' but something lower down in the same family.) 7) LiteOn budget drive - ick. Noisy cheap drives. Functional, but for $12 more you can move into something much better made. 8) no operating system? Linux is great and all, but this is a gamer's PC right? I think you'll need to budget at least another hundred or so, say $130 (that'll get you into XP Pro or Vista Home Premium). 9) $30 mouse, $10 keyboard? wow. yeah, you can pay that much, but they suck. Ok, yeah, sure, if your scrimping they'll service. But a half decent keyboard is $30+, and a good gaming mouse $50+. Those high precision laser mice from Razer or even Logitech are worth it. The buttons click better, the scroll wheel moves better, there's just no comparison. 10) I'm not sure I agree with your theory about not buying a new monitor for 15 years. Are you using a 15 year old monitor? I upgraded from 15" CRT to a 17" CRT to a 19" CRT to a 19" LCD to a 22" LCD in the last 10 years. And a 22" at 249? I'd have a tough time choosing a 20" at that price that I'd consider to be good quality. 11) Speakers - yeah I agree one good set will last a while. 12) aftermarket heat sink/fan. boost your ability to overclock and bring the noise down at the same time. Your PC spec is what I'd call decidedly adequate. Its not bad, and you've covered the most important areas to get excellent framerate, but you've cut all the extras, and sacrificed on quality on the peripherals, and while that won't affect framerare or image quality it will impact the enjoyment of your system. For just a few hundred more you can get a PC that's virtually silent, with premium peripherals, in a well built attractive case, with the potential to overclock. If I had $1000 ($880+ Windows) to spend I'd buy what you spec'd. If I had $1400 to spend, I'd buy what I spec'd.

1) If people were planning to OC their system they wouldn't be having me build it for them =P

5a) There have been several articles written since SLI became popular that show you need a solid PSU for SLI. So-called dirty power can become a serious issue otherwise. I prefer to go a bit over rather than under when dealing with the part of the PC that touches every other part, no sense in spending money on the rest of the PC and not providing it clean power.

4b ) A case is a case is a case, I go with simple unless otherwise requested by a customer.

5b) Hard drives are just that kind of a beast, a little bit more money can get you a lot more space all the way until you are spending entirely too much. 320GB seagate drives are quick, reliable, and provide lots of space for the majority of users...and there aren't any seagate drives of 500GB that aren't at least $25 more expensive. I'm sure you would go to a different brand but the 5 yr warranty, excellent customer service, and an extremely reliable product have always kept me convinced that seagate is the best brand to buy from...not that the others suck..just that they are my perference...which of course would be secondary to any consumer preference...but if they had preferences they likely wouldn't need me.

6) To 99% of people there is no difference between this card and a $90 card, if sound is more important for the person the build was for I would prioritize it higher, but really there isn't much difference to anyone without freakish hearing and even then you have to listen for it.

7) I use this drive, it is quiet, fast, and reliable. It is also one of the best drives on the market. So I think you are way off base on this one.

8) In a lot of situations it is uneeded as they already have an XP license. Sorry but I don't buy the BS that you owe MS an extra wad of cash for every machine you upgrade to. As long as you are only using your license on one machine there is no issue. In the situations that it is needed it is simple enough to add to the cart.

9) See you are applying your personal preferences here. Most people see a $30 mouse and think it is fairly expensive. This is why I budget this generically, because it depends on the person. And honestly the best pixel perfect mouse I ever got was a $25 mouse from razer...the damn thing would work in midair on smoke it was so precise. More $$$ doesn't always mean better performance. As for a keyboard...I completely disagree generico keyboards are sufficient for the vasty majority of users.

10) I actually upgraded my monitor to 22" earlier this year. The old monitor is still in use and is a nice 17" monitor that is still chugging along at aprox age 11, putting it within my 10-15 year range.

As for the specifics of the monitor you completely glossed over the important part of it being 2ms and having a solid contrast ratio. As for the price and brand, I don't recommend parts for people that I don't have reason to trust. I use a similar monitor to the one I linked from the same manufacturer and have personally helped order a total of about 33 of them in the last year alone. They are a good manufacturer and stand by their products, part of having someone build a PC for you is that you have their experience to benefit from and I know that Sceptre is one of the best bargains in monitors. And its price exists because of brand name only mentality...which works for me.

12) Again, people don't have somebody else build them a PC to overclock.

Now exactly what do you mean by "you've cut all the extras, and sacrificed on quality on the peripherals"?

The peripheral's and their quality is based purely on speculation on your part. I doubt you have ever purchased a Sceptre so how can you claim to know its quality other than your assumptions? As for the mouse and keyboard these are relatively minor issues to adjust for anyone who has preference, but most people don't so long as they get a good responsive mouse. And truly there is little difference between keyboards today. You can actually get a very nice keyboard for $10...actually my favorite keyboard I have ever had is the one I am typing on right now and it was $8.

What extras would you have added that I didn't, exactly?

 

It will be obsolete by January, of course. D8E and R680 are coming...

vux984 said: Vista & DX10 are a package along with the good and the bad. You don't get to pick and choose which parts you get so consumers look at it as a whole. Current adoption rates show that this package is not appealing. I don't know that anything more needs to be said... I think the biggest issue with Vista is that its not really something one upgrades too. Its too new for mass business adoption - they NEVER upgrade in the first year or two. Hell, some of them are still clinging to windows 2000. But new computers being sold to consumers, including gamers, are predominantly loaded with Vista. And that's all I really expect. As for the PC you built spec'd. Well...first my 1k to 2k was targeting -gamers- not people trying to scrimp together a PC that can run games. And simultaneously, not idiots who buy the bleeding edge. But people who choose parts because they are the best value, not necessarily the cheapest.

 

Thats just it  though, very few people actually want Vista...its being foisted on most by pre-installs and they'd rather use XP.  Its forced upgrades and its only possible through the complete market dominance that MS has...outside of that they would be a sinking ship right now because their current product is a smelly turd.  Most companies have problems when their flagship product is crap..but in MS's position they can use their financial presence to get Dell and the like to install it by default.

As for the PC, that is a hardcore gaming PC and it uses some very nice parts and despite any assertions otherwise is an extremely nice computer that I bet the vast majority of people on this site would be glad to have.

 

As for the PC, that is a hardcore gaming PC and it uses some very nice parts and despite any assertions otherwise is an extremely nice computer that I bet the vast majority of people on this site would be glad to have.

I agree the vast majority of people on this site would be glad to have it; its fast and its new, the cpu/ram/video card is an upgrade for almost anybody; the 8800GT is only a few months old after all. And yes it uses -some- very nice parts. Its just too bad its doesn't keep the standards up throughout. 

"Driving" a system like that with a cheapo generic mouse and keyboard is like driving a Porsche with a Honda steering wheel, and cheap vinyl seat. 

As to your points: I could say somethign all but I wanted to keep this breif-ish.

Re the lite-on drives. If you compare them side by side to the (slightly) more expensive drives, I've found that the more expensive ones spin up/down quieter, and never sound like a jet engine. The lite-ons seem to be more hit and miss. Some are quiet, some aren't, some are loud on some discs but not others. I don't know why. And its been about a year since I last purchased a lite-on so perhaps they've corrected the issues. (?)

As to your point about a lot of people having an available xp license. Most people who buy a new *computer* keep the old one running (either they keep it around, give it to their parents/kids, or sell it, or whatever), so no, they can't legally install windows on the new one too. If they buy parts to upgrade sure, but not if they are buying a complete PC. It does happen that someone will gut upgrade a PC and replace the mobo/cpu/video card/ram and keep everything else... but its not exactly the usual case. Because a gut upgrade like that is most of the cost of a completely new unit.

As to your points about the monitor specs. What can I say? The ms speed rating is utter bullshit. "X ms GTG (grey to grey)" is the most bullshit statistic ever invented.

1) Is 2ms GTG the best case? Worst case? Average case? There are a lot of different greys, and LCDs take different amounts of time to move between different levels.  A screen that has a 2ms GTG best case but a 30ms GTG worst case is an utterly worthless pieces of crap.

2) Is 2ms GTG accomplished using an 'overdrive'  method. And if so, how bad are the sparkle artifacts (because it WILL have them)?

To improve monitor speeds between 'bad case' GTG transitions monitor companies found that one way they could improve the time without using more expensive panels was by OVERSHOOTING the target value, and then bringing it back down. Not every GTG transition takes the same amount of time, and it generally takes longer to make close transitions than far ones. (ie its faster to go from black to white than it is to go from dark grey to darker grey.

So what do they do? If they need to move a pixel from darker grey to dark grey they overshoot to light grey, and then bring it back down to dark grey. 

e.g. say its 11 ms to go from darker to dark. But only 2ms to go from darker to light, and 3 more  from light to darker. Clever huh? We've got it down from 11ms to 5ms transition. Only trouble is, for a couple ms it was light! So if your watching a screen transition from darker grey to dark grey you'll be able to see it 'sparkle' as it overdrives the pixels to light grey. End result is your picture quality is actually lower. Monitor overdrive is about as big a NON-feature as Nvidia TurboCache or ATI hypermemory.

 3) 2ms is a pointless number to have anyway. What frequency do you run your LCD at? 60Hz?  80Hz? 100Hz? Most people are running at *UNDER*  80Hz. (60 and 70 are most common, IME) So assuming you run 80Hz this means you have a maximum framerate of 80. Even if your video card is delivering 160fps, you'll still only see 80, because your monitor only refreshed 80 times.

With that in mind, how fast does it need to be? 1/80th of a second or 12.5ms. So what difference does it make if you have a 2ms pixel transition or a 5ms pixel transition?Its VERY important that you're screen be better than 12.5ms, because otherwise it can't keep up. And a few years ago when we had 12ms screens and 8ms screens this was an issue, because 12 and 8 were 'best cases' and the worst case was up around 30ms and even the average case was up around 15 or 16. But if your monitor has a best case of 5ms and worst case of 10ms your fine. A best case of 2m and worse case of 15ms is actually the inferior monitor. And a best case of 2ms and a worst case 7ms, while 'numerically better' than on that is 5ms/10ms, it just doesn't make any difference at that point. As long as its faster than the refresh your fine. And both 2ms and 5ms are faster than your eye can discern.

And if the 2ms screen is getting its speed from overdrive, while the 5ms screen is getting its speed from more expensive panel elements, the 5ms screen will look better, because you'll be able to see the sparkle.

And contrast ratio? Another worthless stat. The only way to intelligently compare contrast ratios is if you standardize on a black point. A cheap monitor with a high contrast ratio might just be exceedingly bright, but unable to acheive a good black point.

Another important factor for monitors is how even the brightness is across the panel. Cheaper monitors tend to have bright and dim spots... or be dimmer around the edges... etc.  Cheaper monitors are also often unable to properly display calibrated color properly. Does a 'hardcore gamer' care if the red he's seeing isn't quite the right hue, or the brightness isn't perfectly even? I care. Its less important than framerate and cpu/gpu specs... but I spend a LOT of time looking at my screens. I like them to be -good-.

All that said, I'm not saying your monitor is terrible, just that I suspect that based on its size and price, that its probably not as good as you seem to think. You might not notice or care about its deficiencies and like it just fine, and that's great... but again its a Honda part attached to a Porsche engine.