I started thinking more about getting that blu-ray PC drive and decided I should probably just buy a PS3 now instead and hook it up to my PC monitor. But my current monitor doesn't have an HDMI port and doesn't support full 1080p. So I think with the amount that I use my computer I should buy a real good 1080p monitor so I can hook up both my PC and PS3 at the same time. That is possible correct? Anyone else have this setup?

I was looking at these monitors...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824005125

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824236059

Any other suggestions?

They both look like great monitors. I'm a huge fan of samsung and LG.

I'll second what whiz posted.

Samsung and LG are going to be your high-end monitors. Their panels are often rebranded, too, so check online and you might find something by, say, Asus that actually has an LG panel.

Personally I like Dell's Ultrasharp line simply for the bezel and stand style (it's very minimalistic). The panels are great (and I wouldn't have purchased both of my Dell monitors if they weren't), but the housing sweetens the deal. Dell rebrands LG panels for their Ultrasharp line, so it's a great option.

Do you use one of your monitors for the PS3 as well as your PC? If so, how do you like it?

Yeah I use my 22" wide monitor for my PS3 and my PC (and my 20" for my PC only). It's not full 1080P but it does accept a 1080P signal, so it looks great.

Unfortunately my particular model does not have 1:1 pixel mapping, so the 16:9 output from the PS3 becomes 16:10 on my monitor via some vertical stretching. It's only noticeable on things you know are supposed to be a certain shape, like a square or a circle. Overall, though, I don't mind.

How much of a difference do you notice between a 5ms response time and 2ms? My monitor now is 2ms and it seems great. I'm just wondering looking at the different prices here. I also noticed a lot of the 2ms monitors are rated by GTG which isn't the real response time. I don't know what I should get now.

My 20" has a 16ms response and I guess the 22" is rated at 5ms? I don't notice any difference at all in terms of the response time while I'm gaming, except the more prominent tearing on the 20" (though VSYNC with triple buffering takes care of that without any performance impact).

Also, you already touched on this, but don't take the response time from the manufacturer at face value. Each company measures their values differently.

Is this a good choice?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824009179

That Acer monitor is likely a TN panel and consequently will have poor viewing angles outside a directly perpendicular positioning.

We have Acer monitors at work and they suck.

I have some Hans G monitors at work, 23" monitors, three of them. They work perfectly. No idea if they are cut out for gaming. Newegg had them for $130 & free shipping. No dead pixels, clarity is pretty damned good.

I ended up buying the 23" LG monitor and I love everything about it. The picture is very crisp and clean. The paneling is sexy. The touch sensitive buttons with red LEDs look slick. Even the stand disassembles with ease so breaking it down for transport won't be a hassle. This is also my first time having dual monitors and I really enjoy having that extra desktop space. Plus, the setup looks pretty sick on my desk.

My LG: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824005125
I got it on sale for $209

My Samsung: http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/sa ... ag=box4505
I got it from Best Buy 2 years ago for $199

As a side note, I still highly recommend this Samsung monitor. I haven't found anything that matches it's performance and appearance for the same price. The only reason I bought a new one was so I could have an HDMI port.