I think "panel type" gets hyped up (and over-generalized based on 15 years ago stereotypes) too much recently - I have a ~10 year old IPS (Samsung SyncMaster 204B) and it's still fast/good enough for whatever you like, but doesn't boast .000000000000001ns response times or hextuple-infinity:1 contrast. It's a far cry from the Y2K era CTX I used to have, which had ho-hum response and PQ, especially compared to CRTs from its era. Generally I just ignore any specifications beyond size, resolution, and refresh rate - they're all made up anyways. Anything better than 10ms is generally good enough for gaming (it will be responding faster than the frames can redraw at 60Hz), and <5ms is exceptional (and not all that uncommon).
As far as a new monitor for gaming - I'd probably pass on 16:10 and here's why:
- It's relatively uncommon these days, so your options are limited.
- Any Hor+ game will have a larger viewable area on 16:9, and any Vert- game will have minimal advantages on 16:10 (and we're assuming you're going to pillar-box fixed 4:3 or 5:4 titles so that's a non-issue).
- There's tons of 16:9 options available from mainstream manufacturers, and all of them are generally good enough - ViewSonic, Asus, NEC, Samsung, Dell, etc all make very good monitors.
If you're primarily going to play 4:3/5:4 or Vert- games, however, I'd honestly suggest you scrap the entire WS concept - get a modern 5:4 display (I like my NEC AS172). You'll have less hassle with scaling/AR conversion, and have a larger viewable area for the Vert- games than any WS can produce.