• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Wireless mice faster than wired?

Status
Not open for further replies.
as human have between moving the mouse and "seeing" the movement on the monitor. So again, the claim the method sucked because it depended on the GPU and monitor is just wrong.

Did you take your pills?

It is not done in any scientific manner, there are a lots of deviation, the margin of error is enough to make each of those devices winners or losers.

It is a entertainment yellow press channel. Take it or leave it.

I even fail to see in that video at what sensor modes any of those mice were working.
 
Last edited:
Your suggested custom USB device would impose a similar latency issue - but reveal nothing in terms of perception.
Eliminates all processing other than the USB latency and mouse itself. Like I said, the best they got is 72 fps when a wired mouse to test would require at least 333 fps. The difference between the mice in their test could simply be because of which frame the movement landed on. If it was late in a frame, it will get bumped to the next frame. The bottle neck is the monitor and GPU here, not the mouse (except the Logitech MX Anywhere 2). The test is therefore kind of pointless.

Edit: Also random thought: it takes movement for the laser/optics to register a change in movement. Out of curiosity they should have tested a wired USB ball mouse too. A lot of the latency might be because of the movement detection method.
 
Last edited:
i love my g900, i wont ever got back too wire. :)

The G900 has the same problem all wireless mice have; If you have a shot lined up, and wait, the mouse can go to sleep, needing two clicks to fire.

I have a G900, configured to lefty config, but I use the wire, not wireless.
 
Did you take your pills?
If Car and Track states they are testing the Camero and Mustang for 0 - 60 times, is it right to summarily dismiss the review (or reviewer) because they didn't test on a mountain curvy road?

The intended purpose of the comparison was clearly stated at the beginning of the comparison. The methodology used was clearly explained and technically sound. The conclusions met the intended purpose. That's it.
Eliminates all processing other than the USB latency and mouse itself.
I agree. But not the point or relevant in this test as this test is about human perception. And again, as long as the same monitor and GPU are used, the test is fair. They point out they used the fastest monitor they could find and the card is nothing to sneeze at. If they were bottlenecks, all the scores would be the same, as limited by the monitor's or the GPU's restrictive limits. But they weren't the same. So from a human perspective viewpoint - this is valid.

All I'm seeing here is "I don't like Linus, therefore his video sucks and is pointless ". And I think that is sad.
 
Edit: Also random thought: it takes movement for the laser/optics to register a change in movement. Out of curiosity they should have tested a wired USB ball mouse too. A lot of the latency might be because of the movement detection method.

To complicated, just a scope on the USB data line, as soon the movement starts, data should be high(scope it), it can be scoped with dumb GPIO with a dedicated device and exclude PC factor as such, as they differ a lot, kernel nature, power savings, game engine quirks, multithreading, atop the GPU driver itself.

Dedicated device running a stripped kernel. I still like the sound sample as event start, like friction between the mouse and the pad as soon movement starts. It leaves option for calibration, as sound event can be replaced for button press. Take it as a null level, then evaluate the the sensor performance.

If Car and Track states they are testing the Camero and Mustang for 0 - 60 times,

Car analogies? Have they ever worked? Have you ever read TPU mice reviews ? Mice performance depends on many factors. Not only wired or not, that video is not serious by any means.
 
Hmm, PS/2 would be prudent to test too because it worked based off of interrupts rather than USB which has a polling frequency.

But not the point or relevant in this test as this test is about human perception. And again, as long as the same monitor and GPU are used, the test is fair.
He created a hypothesis about mouse latency then proceeded to test framerate. That is a flawed test and this is why we peer review.
 
He created a hypothesis about mouse latency
No he didn't. The mouse makers did. He set out to prove if they were correct or if they were spewing marketing hype.
 
Hmm, PS/2 would be prudent to test too because it worked based off of interrupts rather than USB which has a polling frequency. He created a hypothesis about mouse latency then proceeded to test framerate. That is a flawed test and this is why we peer review.

Well things have changed a bit with PS/2 also, it is still incorporated in any modern board, albeit it is not as low level as it was, it is behind the eSPI now. Look here for a simple diagram.


eSPI is faster, but more sustained burst speed doesn't mean low latencies, just like PCI vs PCIe. It depends on the implementation. Each PC and config could have their own also, by design. So a modern PCH should treat super I/O devices in a different manner via PCH versus the older ones. I haven't had a need to look if really something has changed there, but at last since few decades they changed the IBM PC LPC stack alongside the SMBus.

But measuring wise. Still if we evaluate the mouse performance and how long it does take to send off data, on the PS/2 data pin. The attached PC should be excluded from the math as such.

No he didn't. The mouse makers did. He set out to prove if they were correct or if they were spewing marketing hype.

He's the one spewing the marketing hype. He can bend the perception of things, for example putting the mice at Max DPI, thus smoothing kicks in and that means additional latency. It's all rubbish testing without telling basic things.
 
He's the one spewing the marketing hype.
Gee whiz! No he's not. Did he promote one over the other! NOPE!!!!!!!!

He just stated what Logitech and Corsair were claiming - setting up the premise for the test.
 
He just stated what Logitech and Corsair were claiming - setting up the premise for the test.

It doesn't tag well with data our own mice reviews tell that our Vanir does. Read up. Compare data. There are alternative measuring methods and results also. That video is botched from the start.


My wish would be to measure the actual sensor wake up time, we are kinda putting pants over our head with this.
 
Glad you picked something current. :respect:

Again, all I'm seeing here is criticism based on bias against the reviewer.

That video is botched from the start.
No. The viewer is trying to impose his own beliefs into what he thinks the video should be about. :( The video is not about testing mice to see which is better. It is simply trying to verify or refute manufacturer's claims.

I see no reason to debate this further. Have a good day.
 
This is just a silly comment. Did you actually watch the video? In terms of technical accuracy for the intended and stated purpose of the test , what was wrong?
So? I started analyzing and comparing high-tech IS/IT electronics for the US Government (DoD) back in the early 70s. I emphasized for who because that indicates I had a duty (punishable by law - the UCMJ, to be precise) to be unbiased. And spending taxpayer's money for such very expensive equipment was one of my fiduciary responsibilities too. Does that make me a review god? Nope.
Sorry, but this method is valid the stated purpose of the test was about human perception (what we "see" on a monitor) and because the same GPU and monitor (and computer) are used for each mouse. Therefore, any latency they might impose will affect/handicap any mouse in the same way. Your suggested custom USB device would impose a similar latency issue - but reveal nothing in terms of perception.

Huh? They were measuring mouse movement, not switch throw distances. This video had absolutely nothing to do with mouse clicks.

Folks need to set aside their biases, prejudices, and dislikes for the messenger and look only at the content of the message.

And folks need to take a moment to understand what the tests are about!!!!! The video was about what the manufacturers claimed. And that was stated just 7 seconds in - that Logitech and Corsair claims their wireless mice are "indistinguishable" to wired mouse. That is a human perception issue Linus was testing. In fact, Linus explained this was the perception we, as human have between moving the mouse and "seeing" the movement on the monitor. So again, the claim the method sucked because it depended on the GPU and monitor is just wrong.

He was NOT doing technical measurement to determine on paper - which was better. He was just testing to see if humans could distinguish the difference. And he proved we couldn't - with the right mouse of course.

Eh? You can see differences in milliseconds? That's impressive, especially at your age...
Either you measure things properly, or it doesn't really matter, no? You if anyone, based on your past work, should know this.
And no, I don't trust anything that comes out of that persons cake hole. I have a few choice words for what he is, but that's something I'm not going to share here.
I guess you've never had the displeasure of meeting him or having to deal with him? He's biased to whomever pays him the most and that's that. This is why he's not a reliable source for anything.

I'd also like to ask, why are you defending him so vehemently? Are you related to him? Or are you paid by him to trawl forums to protect his image? I'm just curious, as I can at least base my impression of him on the fact that I have met him and I know how he works and how he deals with "partners". He always makes a buck on his videos and by a buck, I mean ,000.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, not a trustworthy "source".

You know all too well about trusthworthy sources, don't you? Like the one telling you AMD had a 5GHz Zen 2 part? You know, the claim for which you time and time again cried out about being true, using your imagined reputability in the industry, just like you are doing here ("someone that spent the better part of a decade testing and writing about hardware") as a justification for.

Also, LTT actually went out and tested the mice. There's no reason to doubt him.

He's biased to whomever pays him the most and that's that. This is why he's not a reliable source for anything.

That's true -- although that's true of all advertised content (news or otherwise, so New York Times for example) out there. But that doesn't relate to this test, now does it (well, it does, as he is advertising for the products/subjects in his test)? He tests one Logitech mouse against another, in a question of responsiveness of a mouse. What matters here is the actual numbers he produces, and between them -- are you saying there is something wrong with them or the test?

You might be critical of his testing methodology (there is definitely much to criticize there), or his trustworthiness in general. But as long as there are no other tests of responsiveness of wired and wireless mice, and they don't contradict this one in any relevant way, the results LTT got here are to be taken as true. That is after all a simple truism in regards to scientific method and empiricism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Eh? You can see differences in milliseconds? That's impressive, especially at your age...
Huh? Now what are you talking about? I never said I could see it. And if you had watched the video, it showed such differences could not be perceived by us humans either. That was the whole point of the test.
And no, I don't trust anything that comes out of that persons cake hole.
Just because you don't trust someone, that does not mean everything that person says or stands for is untrue. If anything, your comment just proves and illustrates how biased a person you are. :(
And for the record, just because you do trust someone, the opposite is true too - that does not mean everything that person says or stands for is true.

The facts are, Logitech and Corsair do make those claims. So are they lying too because Linus reports about those manufacturers' claims? :kookoo:
I'd also like to ask, why are you defending him so vehemently?
I am not defending him. I am defending the content of the video. But sadly, you and your followers are so focused on the person, you can't see past the person to see the facts. Your prejudices towards the messenger have gone so far as to twist your perception completely even of those who accept the message of the video as fact. For example, even after quoting me, you claimed I said I could see differences in milliseconds. No where did I ever say, imply, or suggest that!

You claim I was defending him. No I didn't. Starting with the first line in my first post in this thread, it was all about the content of the video, i.e., the message not the messenger.
TheLostSwede said:
He's biased to whomever pays him the most and that's that.
:eek: Wow! You just illustrated again how your hate and biases towards an individual blinds and drives you. :( So according to your logic, Logitech's wireless mouse department paid Linus more than Logitech's wired mouse department, right? :kookoo:

Did you provide any shred of evidence whatsoever in your rants against the messenger that anything he said in that video was wrong? Nope.

So you twist around what others say and imply others said something they didn't and we are supposed to trust what comes out of your pie hole?

Is Linus perfect? Nope.
Are his mannerisms sometimes abrasive? Yes.
Do the methodologies used in some of his videos some times leave questions unanswered or even lead to misleading conclusions? Yes.
Do that mean nothing he says can be trusted? No.

Does liking a person determine if they are stating fact or fiction? Nope.

For the record, I will defend any person, place or thing that is unjustly accused of wrong-doings - even if I don't like them. Just as I will defend your right to express your opinions (at the right place and time), regardless how biased I think they are. I didn't spend 24 years in the military defending yours and my rights only to trample on them myself. But having the right doesn't give one the right to express them any time they want, or in a way that tramples unjustly on others.

For the last time, the intent of the video was to verify or refute manufacturers' (not advertisers :rolleyes: and not Linus') claims by comparing results "from mouse movement to object movement on the screen". Not from mouse movement to USB port, but to object movement on the "screen". And to eliminate human bias and human limitations, they used a mechanical method to initiate mouse movement and the clock, and the high-speed camera to detect the object movement on the screen. Then they used a computer to measure the latency. And yes, with my background, it is my opinion this was a valid test - if for no other reason than it took Linus and other humans out of the test.

Now please, let's move on.
 
My followers? I wasn't aware I had any, nor am I a religion.

I have no hatred towards him, I just find him slimy and someone best avoided.

You read way too much into things.

Anyhow, no point discussing this any further, let's just agree to disagree on this.
 
Low quality post by Deleted member 157276
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top