Monitor Response Time Irrelevant?

I was just reading the comments on an article over on Toms :

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...4,2696-17.html

While the x8/x8 PCIe results were great, the readers comments interested me more as I need to pick a Monitor for a new gaming PC I am about to order. This lead me to this article:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...eed&subj=Crave

This was a suprise to me - anyone else agree or disagree with this?

On the subject can you also recommend a good 1080p monitor for gaming and movies for around £150 to £170?

Well it's been known for a while that manufactures are fudgeing the numbers, ever since they started quoteing response times for grey to grey instead of black to white because there's not fixed grey to grey values.

Personally I've not seen lcd motion blur since back when 8ms response times where the big thing and this HD thing didn't exist.

The main reason as far as I'm concerned for 120mhz refresh rates is the ablitly to do 3d.

Yeah, it is pretty irrelevant.
I used to use a Dell 3007WFP with an 11ms GTG time and 14ms BTB, undetectable. No ghosting to report whatsoever. I don't think any monitor you can buy suffers ghosting any more, it's a relic of the infancy of LCD displays.
I don't know about fudging the numbers, but one thing that does wind me up is dynamic contrast, things like 80,000:1 'dynamic contrast', when the actual contrast is more like 1600:1. Pathetic.

Quoted response times are irrelevant because they bear little relation to reality. Real response times are very relevant for people playing things like FPS. But you only have to get 'good enough' - once past that further improvements are unnoticeable.