20" LCD

actually i think both of these monitors' contrast ratios are based on a 'trick' kind of like gray to gray response time. it's called dynamic versus static contrast. the samsung is 1000:1 'static' ("real" ) contrast, the other is probably somewhere along the lines of 700:1. if you are running games, this should be fine anyway though. read some reviews on both, good reviews will measure their own response time, and their own contrast ratios.

the 5ms response time is almost certainly GTG. black to black is probably something like 12ms. which is still pretty great. there are monitors now with 2ms GTG reponse times (though im not sure they are available in 20" ), thats where i would look, since you said you will use it for gaming. i think an extra 40 - 50 dollars would be worthwhile to get a little faster monitor.

Unless its absolutely urgent (like your old monitor burned out), i would wait out for a few weeks. I am looking for a monitor with a fast response time too, and there doesnt seem to be anything truly outstanding out now. this seems to be an exciting time for monitor technology. who knows what will come out soon, and how much the price on the ones you picked out will drop as a result.

Do not be foolled by manufacturers' marketing tricks; in both cases, these high contrast ratio numbers are dynamic and not static. I have got a Philips (LG-Philips panel) that has 3500:1 dynamic and 800:1 constant (which is the true contrast). In any case, you should not put too much faith on what manufacturers claim. I have seen (and there are tests to support that) theoretically inferior monitors (i.e. higher latency times, lower contrast ratios) that perform much better than highly advertised ones. The difference is that when highly acclaimed marques such as NEC or Eizo state some numbers, these are closer to reality. Just go to a high street shop and see these monitors in operation. You will notice that the most expensives have much superior image quality, even if they have theoretically lower specs.