1000hz if it's stable.

 

Would you consider this to be "stable"?

 

Yeah, that should be fine.

 

Even with that one 471 Hz at the bottom? Its considered stable?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacroZerg

Even with that one 471 Hz at the bottom? Its considered stable?

he propably stopped moving the mouse in this moment or at least slowed it down to take a screenshot

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorsteNN

he propably stopped moving the mouse in this moment or at least slowed it down to take a screenshot

Yea that could be the case, but i think ive read about unstable 1000 hz polling rates where precisely this happend, 1 odd low number here and there. The OP should say what the case is.

 

Yeah it was just from stopping the mouse. When I had my death adder the 1000 hz polling would just fluctuate from 1-1000 rarely even hitting 1000. It seems steelseries make better mice

 

I use 500 Hz where it's possible as there is no need for 1000 Hz at all. 1000 Hz still puts higher stress on your CPU. It's not much, but why do that while 500 Hz is completely fine?

 

I use 1000Hz cause it's 1ms less, and tracks just as well with my CM Spawn (firmware 61) as anything lower.

The CPU utilization is even more trivial than a 1ms response advantage.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ino.

I use 500 Hz where it's possible as there is no need for 1000 Hz at all. 1000 Hz still puts higher stress on your CPU. It's not much, but why do that while 500 Hz is completely fine?

because a modern CPU will absolutely sneeze at the difference

as far as CPU stress goes, the choice between 1000Hz an 500Hz mattered 10 years ago and pretty much stopped mattering once dual core CPUs became the norm

 

In my experience it made a difference of about 2-5 fps average. Also 1000 Hz had jitter on most mice I tried.

And please don't tell me you notice a difference of 1ms in update rates. There is no real advantage to it. So my conclusion is to go with the most stable polling rate with the best performance which is 500 Hz for all my mice.

 

Just pick whatever is stable, the difference between the two is negligible and it won't make you better.

 

500 Mhz on XP, 1000 on 7 and 8. Why? XP felt smoother and starting from Windows 7 and upwards they changed the mouse ballistics code a tiny wee bit, it feels a tad more accurate but also less smooth. The end result: 1000 Hz to get the maximum possible responsiveness.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ino.

And please don't tell me you notice a difference of 1ms in update rates. There is no real advantage to it. So my conclusion is to go with the most stable polling rate with the best performance which is 500 Hz for all my mice.

I do. 1000hz tends to be a bit less restricted to hand movement. 500hz (or lower steps) will always hit a "barrier" as I like to call it. Even if you're not moving your mouse at max speed (1000hz) movement is still more "free" hovering in between.

Whether you notice in game depends on how you play. More so, a comfort factor and knowledge of personal hardware.. Not really one size fits all.

I could say 125hz is more stable and faster to hand response than any other setting, and while it may be true for me at a given time, it isn't the same case for others as input latency of lets say my monitor has impacted my overall experience giving me a different view point of perception. DPI "feel" takes a similar approach.

On topic of stability it isn't a case of whos products are better or worse, but rather hardware capabilities and fw.

Edit: Many USB2.0 controllers default @ 1000hz

 

I have to say go with which one is stable i attend to use 1000hz because my mice run stable hz of pure 1000hz on mouse rate program

 

It does not matter that much, you not gonna play better or worser with either setting.

 

in terms of latency or response its the same thing youre not going to notice a difference. however, i feel more steady with 500hz so ive always kept it on that

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jr92

Would like to hear some opinions preferably from players who have played games at a competitive level.

I'm currently using the Steelseries Sensei, in Mouse Movement recorder it seems to be fairly consistent at 1000 hz compared to other mice I've had in the past (Deathadder 3.5g, was completely unstable at 1000).

In terms of optimal settings and consistency what in your opinion is better, 1000 hz or 500? We made the move from 125 - 500, are we ready for 1000 yet?

Depend on the mice that you are using. Some are better at 125, some at 500 and some at 1000.

According to some reviews, the G500 perform the best at 500hz. Since your Sensei use a similar sensor (A9800 AFAIK) it may apply to it too. You will have to test and see for yourself.

 

Polling is not related to sensor.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylit

I do. 1000hz tends to be a bit less restricted to hand movement. 500hz (or lower steps) will always hit a "barrier" as I like to call it. Even if you're not moving your mouse at max speed (1000hz) movement is still more "free" hovering in between.

Whether you notice in game depends on how you play. More so, a comfort factor and knowledge of personal hardware.. Not really one size fits all.

I could say 125hz is more stable and faster to hand response than any other setting, and while it may be true for me at a given time, it isn't the same case for others as input latency of lets say my monitor has impacted my overall experience giving me a different view point of perception. DPI "feel" takes a similar approach.

On topic of stability it isn't a case of whos products are better or worse, but rather hardware capabilities and fw.

Edit: Many USB2.0 controllers default @ 1000hz

Ok, let me rephrase that: please don't tell me you notice 1ms update difference in an FPS game. I can't comment on 2D movement, but I know it makes a difference in paint that even I can tell ( which is explained in wolfwoods(?) awesome thread).

Or do you mean something different? I don't really know what you mean with "barrier"

 

I do notice a difference in a FPS game. It isn't a question of 1ms vs 2ms but the ability to exceed a "set" hz cap. Whether it makes you a better or worse player is practically null, but I do feel less restricted when it comes to certain kinds of movement that would otherwise hit the "500hz barrier/wall" as I call it. Your mouse does not always poll at a set rate unless moved at max speed

Like I mentioned it's going to depend on how you really play, but hardware difference can impact such perception.

PS: When I was still playing right handed low sens, the switch between 500hz and 1000hz didn't do much for me. Just had to spend a little time DMing and all was fine. Re learning how to play left handed has given me a much better understanding of little things.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylit

I do notice a difference in a FPS game. It isn't a question of 1ms vs 2ms but the ability to exceed a "set" hz cap. Whether it makes you a better or worse player is practically null, but I do feel less restricted when it comes to certain kinds of movement that would otherwise hit the "500hz barrier/wall" as I call it. Your mouse does not always poll at a set rate unless moved at max speed

Like I mentioned it's going to depend on how you really play, but hardware difference can impact such perception.

PS: When I was still playing right handed low sens, the switch between 500hz and 1000hz didn't do much for me. Just had to spend a little time DMing and all was fine. Re learning how to play left handed has given me a much better understanding of little things.

Hm, interesting. Maybe I don't feel anything because I do play low sens

Not that I don't believe you, but can you try to explain which kind of movements you mean and what the effect is? Probably something that is hard to explain, I know, but I'm curious

 

Not 100% related but I'm still going to ask. Why isn't there a usb hz force program that wouldn't require you to disable driver signature enforcement? Would a signed driver cost so much or is there another technical barrier? You can nowadays overclock pretty much everything straight from Windows but not force the usb polling rate. It would be still useful even though it's not as widely needed anymore as it used to be.

 

As a quake live player I can definitely notice the difference. I think you less likely to notice 1000 hz in slow paced realistic shooters where people play with ultra low sens and their cursor movement hardly exceeds 90 degrees.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by meih

Not 100% related but I'm still going to ask. Why isn't there a usb hz force program that wouldn't require you to disable driver signature enforcement? Would a signed driver cost so much or is there another technical barrier? You can nowadays overclock pretty much everything straight from Windows but not force the usb polling rate. It would be still useful even though it's not as widely needed anymore as it used to be.

Maybe because there's people that charge extra for the native 1000 hz polling rate.