Great responses!

if you look at the link to the LB tester it clearly says that it measures "input lag + response time". Considering how the lag tester works it'd be impossible for it to NOT include response time because it can only see what the dispaly outputs and the output is limited by the response time.
Which is why panel type would be so important.. there can be a 10-20ms difference from a TN to an IPS, so on those PC monitors, it could triple the overall latency.
You're right that different display technologies generally have different response times but that's inconsequential to the lag listings in the database because, again, the response time is included in the lag numbers.
True, but I would think anyone interested in "nuts and bolts" like this would like to see WHY one brand might be higher.. is it because of slow processors or because of the screen they use? If you are making decisions based on latency, you could be sacrificing picture quality, and in the case of big screen games like DDR, off axis viewing would be just as important as response time. Knowing the screen type (which in some cases can be the cause of the majority of the total lag) will also let you know that a particular manufacturer might use slower processors, so for models not listed, you would know to avoid the IPS versions of that model if you want lower latency. It might be splitting hairs, but if I am going to use a website for specific performance specs on a device, I want to know the key contributing factors, not just the overall results.
HDMI and DVI (D) are the same protocol, you can use a straight through connector to change one plug end to the other and neither the display nor the source device knows the difference.
True again, but the point is, there are other processors involved when using HDMI vs DVI, for breaking out audio signal and copy protection, etc. A monitor with a DVI (D) input won't have all that, and hence the input lag will be (theoretically) lower. By not having the ability to test outside of HDMI, including computer monitors (particularly ones that use a pure DVI input with an HDMI connector for compatibility and not for full HDMI spec) is not a "fair" fight. Of course the monitors will have lower latency, they don't have those extra processors.
I want to reiterate that as a site to determine the best TV to use with a PC in a gaming environment, this is a great site. It just misses the mark in determining what a good gaming monitor is.
I'm bit into home theater myself. I hadn't considered it's use for audio sync... that's not a bad idea.
Frankly without reading the entire site, I thought this was half of what the site was for - video enthusiasts looking for the info on how to set their audio sync. That and for people wanting to hook an x-box to their tv.
It's also worth noting that while the FPS community prefers PC, consoles are still the preferred platform for fighting games and as of right now there aren't any consoles that support display ports or this g-sync technology. (seems very promising I'd be interested in trying it out myself).
It seems to me that you're into FPSs and that's cool but that's not the end-all be-all of high precision gaming. There are many many places in the modern gaming world where low lag is very important.
To be completely honest, I have always viewed consoles as "for kids", and I have never even considered them as serious competitive gaming devices. I have been to a few events for "extreme gaming" and it is always either PC based, or arcade based (ie Big Buck). I didn't even know that console games had any kind of professional gaming leagues. I am not into FPS, but of every genre I have played, it is the only one where I have seen that things like input lag, refresh speed, ghosting, screen tearing, and overall frame rate are actually important. I myself was planning to purchase a G-Sync monitor back in April when the ROG was supposed to come out, and I might eventually get into the technology, I just no longer even play FPS games casually (or any game where a few milliseconds will make a difference or where I needed a powerhouse video card to play without stutters or screen tears) so it is no longer a priority.
When I spent a few days really boning up on G-sync, Lightboost, Free-Sync, and all the technology associated with trying to get LCD's to perform like the high end CRT's of old, everything I read was geared toward competitive FPS gaming. I have been to PAX and watched live world championships of LoL, I have heard of QuakeCon, and I have even competed in Big Buck tournaments at the bars around town, but I have never heard of competitive DDR, or even tournaments with console games. That doesn't mean they don't exist, I just have never traveled in those circles, or even met someone who is involved. In all the years of gaming, both hardcore and casually, competitive gaming has always been synonymous with PC's. The last time I heard of console competition was the movie "the wizard", lol.
Also, not one single game I play will stretch and distort. If it is a 4:3 game, it plays in a 4:3 window and just doesn't use the extra screen.
If you're unfamiliar with that gaming hardware it's not a CRT arcade game, it's hardware that was designed to run in 720P on a Wide-screen LCD... and most of the games I plan on playing are Fighting Games (such as Blaz Blue and Street Fighter IV)... as well as SHMUPs (such as GigaWing Generations and Raiden IV) which is why I want a low-lag wide-screen LCD to go with it.... I don't know where you got the idea that I'll be playing "pac-man" on this screen
Actually, in the post immediately prior to that one, you said:
Personally if I'm playing a game that was meant to be played in 4:3 and it's being stretched to fit a widescreen display, it's distracting to me, I can't lose myself in the game because my mind keeps concentrating on all the visual flaws caused by screen stretching... the same thing happens to me when there is some kind of weird border around the screen to fill in the gap for a smaller sized display... it's not something I WANT to pay attention too but it's something my mind can't help but latch on to and it prevents me from simply enjoying the game.
I assumed that your newer comments were an extension of this topic, which is why I was saying that 4:3 games don't stretch to wide mode on any mame game that I have ever played. The black bars on each side are the same color as my bezels, so I don't ever notice them, and I only see the 4:3 screen.
I also assumed that since you posted in this thread, you were making another argument for why LCD's are not as good as CRT's in arcade type games. In my case, I didn't use a fast 32" monitor on my last cab, and I really don't know what the latency is, yet it still didn't affect my ability to play and enjoy it. Granted, I am not a competitor in any kind of professional cyber athlete league, but then neither is anyone on this forum that I know of.
You don't need to spend $800 on a bleeding etch G-Sync display along with the PC hardware to support. as you can see on the DisplayLag website there are quite a few "pretty good" monitors with less than 1 frame of lag that can be had for under $200. I only shared it because it's a pretty good guide help you select your next LCD... if you were planning on getting just a 32" whatever for your machine would you rather get the 26ms lag monitor for $200 or the 87ms lag monitor for $200? the decision at that point is pretty easy and it's an excellent resource for those kinds of decisions.
Usually when there is a noticeable discrepancy in any one area of technology, whether it be latency, picture quality, or build quality, there is also a noticeable discrepancy in price. It is rare that you can find any one product that outperforms another in any drastic way for the same price unless there are tradeoffs in other areas. I bought that 32" LCD because it was $220, local, and 1080p. To find those criteria in something while also having 4x lower latency is simply not going to happen. But even so, I would probably never notice the difference when playing pac man or even when playing Street Fighter.
I completely agree that when all other things are equal, pick the product with the best specs. And I don't disagree that using good components is a good idea whenever you can afford to. But I have adopted the philosophy that if you are going to focus on performance in any part of a system, it is a complete waste of time if you aren't going to follow through with it on the entire system, unless that one part you are focusing on is the "weak link". I don't see input lag as the weak link in a gaming system, unless that system is specifically designed for competition, in which case every other area where latency can be lowered would be just as critical. The guy that has a basic desktop computer but took the time to pick out the lowest latency monitor because it is best for competition is the same guy who puts a spoiler on a stock Honda so it will perform better on the track or the guy who buys the $400 running shoes because they are the ones that the Olympic sprinters use (even if he only goes for a walk once a week).
The weak link in competitive gaming is the player. You said in your first post about lag that a person can only react so fast (20ms). The thing is, a talented player who has spent many hours training to react can take advantage of better technology, whereas the average person probably can't react even a tenth as fast. Unless you are a trained "cyber athlete", you probably will never notice or be able to take advantage of a lower latency monitor.
Finally, while I don't disagree that finding the lowest latency monitor is good (as long as it fits all your other criteria, including budget), I have to point out something about competition. You don't gain an edge when everyone else is using the same hardware. In fact, if you train on superior hardware and all other things are equal, if you end up competing against someone who has trained on the hardware you will compete on, you lose your advantage. If every player has to deal with an extra 10ms of latency, the playing field is still equal, and the player is the only difference. At the very outermost extremity of competition, where both players are limited in their ability because of the hardware (and the competition is a draw in every respect), improving the hardware will allow one player to be superior to the other. But in the end, it isn't the car that wins the race, it is the driver.