Went through that a couple of years back. Decided that the ability to render a wide gamut was the most important. Picked up an Asus Pro Art monitor for a bit over 600 on sale which is on the low price end of the graphics quality monitors. Won't be using anything with less gamut range moving forward as I do print and the colours that I can get on some papers do go a bit past my monitors ability to reproduce them. With a less capable monitor I wouldn't have much hope of editing for printing as I can't deal with what I can't see unless I were to restrict the colour space to sRGB.
If most of what you do is for the Web then full coverage of the sRGB space would be enough. For hobby usage or a business that sells digital files, most frequently shot and supplied in sRGB colour space to save themselves issues from clients, then this is likely sufficient. This is what a lot of the world uses as a standard for colour reproduction and avoids the occasional weird thing with colour shifting when folks view their files at home or go to a low cost print shop.
Neither is right or wrong, they are just different choices in work flow for different end purposes of the images.
My son does a fair bit of gaming and finds that the limitation is the video card not the monitor. How many frames per second of your games can it produce?
Back to your questions, my response is what the end use of your images will be? Your reply to that may eliminate many contenders depending on your response.