I have the new Razer 8000 Hz prototype gaming mouse on my desk.

[mossfalt]

https://rzr.to/pollingrate

Right click and copy the link and then open a new browser and copy the link to that, works fine.

Though my IME 3.0 only peaks at around 6000 hz. maybe has something to do with IMOD (interrupt moderation) tweak using RWE program (https://www.overclock.net/threads/usb-p ... 66/page-61) that I cant get to work ?

[Inco^]

https://rzr.to/pollingrate

Right click and copy the link and then open a new browser and copy the link to that, works fine.

Thanks

[Inco^]

Is it still optimal to connect the mouse to a USB port that is located on the monitor?

Quick answer: I justed tested, it is capped to 1000 Hz if plugged in the monitor. If plugged in the PC case, it is going up to 8000 Hz as intended.

[Razer_TheFiend]

Is it still optimal to connect the mouse to a USB port that is located on the monitor?

Quick answer: I justed tested, it is capped to 1000 Hz if plugged in the monitor. If plugged in the PC case, it is going up to 8000 Hz as intended.

One of those reflex monitors? They only have a full-speed USB port (mouse is high-speed).

This is also why they aren't fast enough to report the click latency on this mouse.

Edit : Saw your other post just now - that should answer the question.

[Sparky]

Hello,

I just received my viper 8khz.

It's configured at 8Khz but on testing sites such as:

https://mouseinsider.com/mouse-polling-rate-checker/
I get max 5.6Khz and average 5Khz (doing circles).

https://zowie.benq.com/zh-tw/support/mo ... ecker.html
I get average 5Khz (doing circles).

Is this expected or normal??? Not sure how to check what it is running at in games? Any suggestions?

Browser based tools aren't fast enough to accurately capture mouse reports that fast. You'll need to use a local application.
We made our internal polling rate test tool available to the public here : https://rzr.to/pollingrate

Or you can also try mousetester, if you prefer a third-party tool : https://github.com/microe1/MouseTester

i will reference on that because previously i already mentioned/observed that conventional 1khz mice easily caps to 1khz in the dynamic scaling nature at relatively moderate speed, however, the same speed now yields at least 2k-4k. maybe even 5k. that alone means up to 5x more agility on the average motion, and of course it can go even higher. it doesn't really go above 7500hz (that is, per your own in house tool which ironically doesn't even refresh fast, it's 1hz, meaning if it didn't average things out it skipped 7999/8000 data points in full spec) for your average wrist aimer, and for involving arm movement it goes to 7600-7800. that is of course likely to vary for different setups. It would be more informational to update this tool to at least like 5-10hz or something.

Our tool is actually doing it correct and by the book - showing the number of reports in the past 1 second - which is exactly how mouse "Hz" is defined (reports per second).

That's a much more reliable and precise approach than counting reports in 1/10th of a second and multiplying by 10, like other test software might do.

What actually matters is the distribution of time between two consecutive reports.

The one second average doesn't matter, the only utility that has is for marketing to put on the box. It's like advertising the reliability of a car based on the number of times it was driven last year. It's a nice big number, but what the buyer actually cares about is how many times the car broke down, and how big a problem it was each time.

[Razer_TheFiend]

What actually matters is the distribution of time between two consecutive reports.

The one second average doesn't matter, the only utility that has is for marketing to put on the box. It's like advertising the reliability of a car based on the number of times it was driven last year. It's a nice big number, but what the buyer actually cares about is how many times the car broke down, and how big a problem it was each time.

Yup, you are absolutely spot on, 125us reporting interval is the primary metric. "Hz" is a pretty meaningless derivative number, but that's what everyone (even most enthusiasts) and their dogs have been using in their discussions every day.

I've been trying to relay the same message as you, but trying to convince people that they've been using the Hz-number all wrong is not something that can be done overnight. Hell, I tried explaining the same thing in this very thread 4 months ago and yet the discussion drifts to polling rate tools that report "Hz" numbers, and those don't capture data fast enough, painting the incorrect picture of the performance - which is why we had to make our internal tool public.

The "Hz" number is very misleading because people use it as a primary metric when it's actually not. The primary metric is the polling interval. You get 0.125ms polling intervals regardless of how fast or slow your mouse is moving. In other words, the total reports you generate in 1 second doesn't dictate the responsiveness of the mouse, it's the polling interval.

As a simplified example, let's say you only move your mouse 4000 pixels in 1 second - that would amount to "only" 4000 reports in one second, which any polling rate testing software will read as "4000Hz". It doesn't mean that your mouse is suddenly less responsive - your polling interval was still 0.125ms; just that some of the reports were "null" because you didn't generate 1-pixel equivalent of motion in the last tick.

Using so called "static" polling rate - the "no report" ticks will still be polled as "+0" and count as a poll in a polling rate software, giving you a higher "Hz" number, but it doesn't actually translate to anything actionable for your PC. The cursor only moves when the PC gets a non-0 count.

[lyrill]

Hello,

I just received my viper 8khz.

It's configured at 8Khz but on testing sites such as:

https://mouseinsider.com/mouse-polling-rate-checker/
I get max 5.6Khz and average 5Khz (doing circles).

https://zowie.benq.com/zh-tw/support/mo ... ecker.html
I get average 5Khz (doing circles).

Is this expected or normal??? Not sure how to check what it is running at in games? Any suggestions?

Browser based tools aren't fast enough to accurately capture mouse reports that fast. You'll need to use a local application.
We made our internal polling rate test tool available to the public here : https://rzr.to/pollingrate

Or you can also try mousetester, if you prefer a third-party tool : https://github.com/microe1/MouseTester

i will reference on that because previously i already mentioned/observed that conventional 1khz mice easily caps to 1khz in the dynamic scaling nature at relatively moderate speed, however, the same speed now yields at least 2k-4k. maybe even 5k. that alone means up to 5x more agility on the average motion, and of course it can go even higher. it doesn't really go above 7500hz (that is, per your own in house tool which ironically doesn't even refresh fast, it's 1hz, meaning if it didn't average things out it skipped 7999/8000 data points in full spec) for your average wrist aimer, and for involving arm movement it goes to 7600-7800. that is of course likely to vary for different setups. It would be more informational to update this tool to at least like 5-10hz or something.

Our tool is actually doing it correct and by the book - showing the number of reports in the past 1 second - which is exactly how mouse "Hz" is defined (reports per second).

That's a much more reliable and precise approach than counting reports in 1/10th of a second and multiplying by 10, like other test software might do.

ah ok yes cool great ok. just reminding others that actual split 1/8000th of a second does occur and even faster per mouse movement recorder, although I don't know exactly how that tool functions at all, if it functions correctly it would have to adjust the reading speed in real time--which I think it does, because moving slowly the readings don't go past a screen height at all, and moving any faster I can't keep track and have to resort to the scroll bar--which locks the reading when I scroll it.

[howiec]

So, just my perspective regarding some of these tests/metrics regarding the misleading "avg polling rate".

If by design the mouse only sends movement data as necessary up to the maximum rate of 8kHz, why are people concerned that not moving the mouse enough results in a non-constant 8kHz rate of data packets?

That's just the way it currently works.
You should be happy that what you're getting now is a higher maximum report / "sample" rate, effectively mitigating this old bottleneck.

The bottom line is that there are clear benefits to be had (that I won't regurgitate here) by using 8kHz even in the lower CPI range.

How much benefit you will see depends on your "sensitivity" (reflexes, dexterity, etc.), your system specs, the game(s) you play, and how well-optimized your entire setup is.

However, for various reasons many have recommended using higher CPI values and lower in-game sensitivity.
Unfortunately, some poorly-coded games like Apex Legends force you to use low CPI (e.g. opening inventory with a high CPI = can't manage shit + cursor off-screen alt+tab death).

[lyrill]

Is it still optimal to connect the mouse to a USB port that is located on the monitor?

Quick answer: I justed tested, it is capped to 1000 Hz if plugged in the monitor. If plugged in the PC case, it is going up to 8000 Hz as intended.

One of those reflex monitors? They only have a full-speed USB port (mouse is high-speed).

This is also why they aren't fast enough to report the click latency on this mouse.

Edit : Saw your other post just now - that should answer the question.

damn thx, was considering the qnr......might have to consider other options instead like alienware that also came out within 1-2 months. (manufactured 11th month 2020)

unless u have estimation about when 480+hz monitors come out?

[lyrill]

it's basically limited by a lack of retina esport monitors and that's because there's not enough pubg/arma genre players. 120% scaling is a sweet spot for 1080p, arbitrary as it may be but it works. 100% is unplayable, other games might not be noticable simply because it's not the same genre. cqb action there isn't much pixel to pixel scanning done by the eye. however I'm not sure that the effective pixel on screen is 120% using scaling game settings. What I do know is that having a bigger screen makes things more pixelated and there's obviously a reason people stick to 24inch monitors .

testing with 8kdpi it does seem easier to get to 7800 read on the razer tool. no need for arm swiping. but you are swiping way above the entire screen this way. this means only applicable in games that have multiple 360 continuous targeting and/or don't turn 1:1, which isn't a far fetch, a lot of games have that, completely normal and realistic thing, even in Star Wars. People who have never played a realism/sim genre game in their lives usually jump to berating that the game suck or isn't hardcore fps, jokes on them.