flip a coin

the benq one has a newer version of lightboost, so the colors will not suck as much in lightboost
newer technology (benq) vs older technology (asus) for the same price
if you plan on using lightboost, get the benq
if not and you're an asus fanboy, get the asus; it's your money

144 hertz>lightboost

do you have lightboost/benq br on?

I have the VG248QE and it's great but assuming they have the same performance and price I'd get the Benq because the monitor bezel and stand look better IMO.

It's all personal preference. If you don't like lightboost and you think you might benefit from the 'black equalizer' feature on the BenQ, get that. If you like lightboost, get whichever you want. Given the technology differences, it seems silly to get the older ASUS if they're the same cost.

I have both and I'm unable to discern a difference in their operation. Black Equalizer on the BenQ definitely makes dark areas much brighter, but you can't use that feature while using lightboost.

I personally prefer lightboost over 144hz. Having zero blur makes things easier to see for me, but my vision is a special case and I can understand why other people would prefer 144hz.

I have the VG248QE and it's a good 144hz monitor. Lightboost works well on it too which is a plus. You won't have a problem with either one, 144hz is automatically high end, there aren't really any utterly terrible ones, you don't find any budget ones that make sacrifices.

Lightboost on the Asus gave me a bad headache and actually looked less smooth personally.

Simplest thing to do is to get the 144hz and just run it at that refresh rate!

It's funny to see how hyped lightboost was and now most people (including me) prefer 144 hertz

I'd probably get the BenQ simply because you get more options and if I'm not mistaken both monitors use the same panel anyway.

Pretty sure I read this too, but couldn't find a source so I left it out. Either way, despite having the same panel it can be tuned slightly differently by each manufacturer.

so, even if i don't pretend to use lightboost, i should get the benq anyway because it's newer and has black equalizer technology?

are there any differences in those two besides that?

Probably

Not as far as I know aside from other relatively insignifiant firmware differences etc

I mean the only reason I bought a benq (2 xl2720ts) was because of lightboost
but if the benq is newer and is the same price, I can't see why not.

I didn't read every response, but I know that the 144 hz is compatible with the new nvidia technology that syncs directly to the monitor. I'm very interested in that technology

"What’s interesting to me about this last situation is if 120/144Hz reduces tearing enough to the point where you’re ok with it, G-Sync may be a solution to a problem you no longer care about. If you’re hyper sensitive to tearing however, there’s still value in G-Sync even at these high refresh rates."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7582/nvidia-gsync-review/

G-sync isn't really worth it if you're getting >120 frames.

I have the Benq XL2411Z and I'd really recommend it, it has some washed out colors but after some tweaking you can get it fairly OK for this price range of TN panels. The smoothness is really nice, I myself don't use motion blur reduction (or lightboost) but since the monitor just has an easy way to change between them I'd try out both, and imo the difference between 120 and 144 is defenitly noticeable, not by that much tho.

I had the GSYNC mod done to my VG248QE out of pure curiosity. The thing i noticed the most is any type of motion blur is completely taken away. It's way better than the lightboost hack in my opinion because it introduces absolutely no feeling of mouse input lag at all (which is absolutely amazing). On top of that, the monitor doesn't have the extra dimming occur.

Tech's statement above holds true for the most part, if you can hold constant steady frames at that rate. I will say however playing a really demanding game, such as battlefield 4 multiplayer or Metro/Witcher, where you will get FPS fluctuation..it really cleans everything up and makes for a better experience. The elimination of tearing to me is a huge plus, but at this point it's more of a personal preference. Screen tearing is completely cosmetic and truly doesn't affect a game. Overall i'm happy i had the mod done - is it necessary upgrade? Not really - the change i saw from this was not as significant as 60hz to 120hz, but it's still a noticeable improvement (especially the mouse input lag removal). If you want the absolutely cleanest gaming experience, gsync will provide that for now...but that's up to you and your wallet.

#1
Considering you've done "tons of research on both" I'm surprised you didn't pick up the differences.

Asus VG248QE:
(+in theory upgradable with the G-Sync DIY-kit, but it's not available anymore)
-worse colours

Benq XL2411Z:
+better colours
+Black Equalizer
+PWM-free strobing
+More options regarding strobing

Asus VG248QE G-Sync Edition:
+G-Sync
-colours still shit
-expensive

Unless you want G-Sync the Benq is superior in every way.
G-Sync only helps with screen tearing or if your fps are lower than your refresh rate. If your fps are lower than 120/144 why are you buying a 120/144Hz monitor? That leaves only screen tearing. Unless you think screen tearing will bother you so much on 120/144Hz that it's worth spending 200$ more to get rid of it, it's the BenQ either way.

#19
Input lag is the same with and without G-Sync.
http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/

#20 I've read that article before, in fact the numerous articles on that site are what prompted me to go ahead and get the mod done. I'm not here to argue with numbers - all i can simply say from my personal experience is it feels different, and better. I play battlefield 4 a lot, and that's where it's the most noticeable to me. For source games (TF2/CSGO) input lag feels no different, which is what i would assume is because of the high stability in FPS. In this instance, GSYNC just keeps the game looking prettier by eliminating any possible tearing or blur (the cosmetic side i mentioned earlier). It's possible it could also be this effect from GSYNC, which is way more apparent on a game with fluctuating FPS (ie. BF4), why i may feel i see a difference if there really isn't one.

#21
G-Sync doesn't eliminate blur. Blur is not cosmetic, otherwise lightboost would be cosmetic. The input lag reduction is minor. You wouldn't call fps drops "high input lag", it's just a side effect. G-Sync eliminates stutter and only stutter. Slightly lower input lag is a side effect of the frame being displayed earlier in some cases, but most of it is due to perceiving a smooth motion instead of "delayed frames" (=stuttering) where the traveling distance of an object divided the time between the frames doesn't match the velocity it should have and that will eventually perceived after a few frames.

I get what you're trying to say, it looks clearer/smoother and feels more responsive, but "input lag" just isn't the right term and I want to prevent people from misunderstanding it as "G-Sync lowers input lag".

If you can wait a few weeks. Viewsonic is releasing their 144hz monitor in october. If you can, wait a while and see its performance before deciding something.

My BenQ XL2411Z just came in today, and so far I am very impressed. Colors might be a little off, but it doesn't seem close to as bad as people say the colors for the ASUS VG248QE are. Honestly, I could play with how the colors are set from factory and it wouldn't bother me one bit. I probably will make some changes though, once I find an article that shows the best settings for the XL2411Z.

The panels are very similar (if not the same), so it's good to also consider the casing. Do you prefer beautiful matte (BenQ) or disgusting, shiny, fingerprint-attracting plastic (ASUS)? Obviously it's just my taste, to each his own.

Eventually got the Asus, the inverse ghosting of the Benq seemed to much to handle.

If I recall correctly the BenQ XL2411T was 12 micro seconds faster at pixel gtg than the ASUS I'd assume that's true for the XL2411Z btw 12microseconds = .12milliseconds which probably doesn't matter that much but it's still "better"

I can't seem to find the article to show for that but it was on the BlurBusters site :/