Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Mice › Click Latencies compiled
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Click Latencies compiled - Page 5

post #41 of 243
Softer mice have an advantage when actually using them though.

The only problem is if you're mix matching latency tests from shared switch testing with latency tests from bump tests, like knowing mouse A's latency objectively, testing B against A with the switch tests, and C against B with the bump test, C will be higher or lower than A depending on the difference in switch weight wheras with A vs B the switch weight is eliminated.

but the usb polling phasing skew introduces up to 0.5ms in both directions already, and if you're chaining comparisons like this to get objective numbers without adding a range onto them you're already doing it wrong
post #42 of 243
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpecialKthx View Post


thats the reason why, g900 and gpro and g303 have spring for buttons.

You should not bump for a click latency test, I've been following rafa since 1-2 year. He actuate them with one switch. So you get the latency between the switch actuation and the PC.

http://blog-imgs-48.fc2.com/r/a/f/rafaut/measurement01.jpg

http://blog-imgs-48.fc2.com/r/a/f/rafaut/testingmethods.jpg

No...

Ofcourse I know about rafa's work, and on this list I have tried to be as accurate and up to date as possible, and have prioritized results from the wiring method than bump tests. Work by sousu and rafa is old though, so I've used results from uaokkk and qsxcz whenever I could. It is true that there are still a few mice on the list that did not have wired tests done, and in those cases I've taken the averages from the most consistent numbers. I'd rather have a close result and still have those mice on the list, rather than no inclusion just because the bump tests aren't easy for everybody to agree with.

On that note, what you say makes sense theoretically, but in real life trials the bump tests are not far off from the wired tests. Yes, it does take a number of attempts but you can certainly get reliable results by hitting fast/hard enough for a specific case as well as being thorough. qsxcz has proven this in a few of his posts.

I am going to be adding such info to the first posts. The sources are unorganized but you can take a look here and here for some more insight. Those threads have been updated a bunch of times so some material may not be found anymore.
post #43 of 243
Thread Starter 
Got my hands on a KTEC KTM-9500+ and it is on average 1.5ms faster than the Fatal1ty 2020. I used 200 bump tests. This makes it the fastest mouse on the list now.
post #44 of 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by badben25 View Post

Got my hands on a KTEC KTM-9500+ and it is on average 1.5ms faster than the Fatal1ty 2020. I used 200 bump tests. This makes it the fastest mouse on the list now.

I doubt it would beat the Areson/Gigabyte M63 in the wired test. In the end they would just be all 1ms anyway.
post #45 of 243
Thread Starter 
Here's a pic of internals in case anyone's interested

post #46 of 243
Well, at least they had a holder for the led. I guess it cost so much they had to cut costs in other places. A lot of other places.
post #47 of 243
More companies need to utilise the KTEC's top mounted M4 and M5 buttons wink.gif
post #48 of 243
Geil/Epicgear Zora = 10ms debounce
post #49 of 243
perhaps update Asus ROG Sica and Gladius info: http://www.overclock.net/t/1542757/rog-sica/570
post #50 of 243
why is dm1 pro 1.3 ms and dm1 pro s 6.2 ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mice
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Mice › Click Latencies compiled