Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community - Reply to Topic
Thread: Click Latencies compiled Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
05-09-2020 07:54 AM
cdcd Thanks, I'll look into it.
05-09-2020 06:51 AM
ucode I blocked the infrared diode and used an external transistor from some parts I already had, collector to collector. The emitter of the phototransistor is connected to ground so can just take the ground connection from the onboard USB chord connector. The base of the external transistor was driven from the PC I/O.



Was able to make the connection by wire contact using some tape so no soldering which is nice. Using the phototransistor is not quite the same as manipulating the infrared diode as there isn't any PWM but results where similar when connected to infrared diode on the right hand side. Perhaps it's meant as a power saving feature? Don't have a scope either, PWM measurements were made using yet another interface to the PC so it might not be exact but should be close.
05-09-2020 05:17 AM
cdcd
Quote: Originally Posted by ucode View Post
...
How did you activate the phototransistor on the Viper Mini? I should be able to use my usual setup (alligator clip) with that.
05-09-2020 02:34 AM
badben25 It was still interesting to see what you did. In case you go on to test more mice, feel free to post future results here or in your own thread. Rather have them online somewhere.

And yeah, don't obsess over a few ms. It can make some difference but most currently available mice have pretty decent figures without terrible implementation. Just focus on being good at the game you enjoy.
05-09-2020 02:18 AM
ucode
Quote: Originally Posted by badben25 View Post
I'll be honest, I think I understand your table but I don't know if my interpretation is correct.
What do you mean by absolute and not relative? How are you getting absolute figures? How are you testing this?
Not relative as in not measured/compared against another mouse. Measurements are taken by activating the mouse switch by timestamped I/O from the PC and then another timestamp is taken when the button message is received from the OS. Thus it's the time from activation of the mouse button to recieving the Windows message for the mouse button command. Interfacing to the mouse can vary. For instance the Viper Mini was tested via phototransistor activation and alternately (not at the same time) by infrared diode deactivation. Reason for two methods here was due to the infrared diode operating at a frequency of around 2kHz and duty cycle of 75% although during UEFI testing there appears to be an extra 0.5ms activation time every 8ms.

So 5 clicks per second electrically activates mouse button down with timestamp, waits for mouse button down message to be received, records timestamp for that then waits another 100ms, then timestamps and sends the button deactivation (button up), waits for mouse button up message to be received, records timestamp, waits 100ms and so on. This runs a hundred times in succession.

The max clicks per second however activates mouse button down with timestamp, waits for mouse button down message to be recieved, records timestamp and immediately sends the button deactivation (button up) electrically, waits for the button up message and so on for a hundred times in succession. It seems for the Viper Mini if the preceding click up or down lasts less than about 29ms then the following click appears to be penalized. Not sure this would actually be a problem IRL though.

Now if I may be honest. I was happy enough using my mouse as it was until reading this thread but thought it would be interesting to measure latency by means previously stated to see what difference there might be but things spiraled out of control including messing with the Kinzu V2 firmware to give lower click latency. Luckily a poster in another thread helped me realize what was happening.

So all said and done, the latency test you have devised appears to work really well and there isn't any need for me to do anything really other than returning to some form of normality. So keep up the good work and probably better to leave my results out of the main table IMHO as they would probably be more confusing than helpful. Thanks.
05-08-2020 09:41 AM
cdcd
Quote: Originally Posted by badben25 View Post
is there a specific version number?
Software is version 1.1, no specifics in regard to the firmware. It's still in Beta as well, might be named differently once it's officially released.
05-08-2020 09:32 AM
badben25
Quote: Originally Posted by cdcd View Post
SPC Gear LIX Plus: +3.7 ms relative to SteelSeries Ikari (w/ the latest firmware and software, 4 ms debounce delay setting)
is there a specific version number?
05-08-2020 09:12 AM
cdcd SPC Gear LIX Plus: +3.7 ms relative to SteelSeries Ikari (w/ the latest firmware and software, 4 ms debounce delay setting)
05-08-2020 06:41 AM
cdcd Sharkoon Light² 200: +4.4 ms relative to SteelSeries Ikari, w/ the latest firmware (4 ms).
05-07-2020 12:36 PM
cdcd ROCCAT Kain 200 AIMO (relative to SteelSeries Ikari):
+7.2 ms (ZeroDebounce disabled/default)
+0.35 ms (ZeroDebounce enabled)

Measured in wired mode since wireless doesn't return any readings.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off