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

[Razer_TheFiend]

Who decides the zero calibration?

0% for 400dpi suggest that was the zero-calibration.

The problem with 400dpi as the zero-calibration is that it might already be mathematically off internally, but the lowness of 400dpi rounds it off to a very neat zero calibration, where in reality there's a bigger error for 400dpi.

It's not really based on any user decision or assumption - the test method is pretty objective. The user moves the mouse (for example) 10 inches in a straight line, and they use a PC software that measures X-counts reported by the mouse. If it's 4000 counts, then the dpi is exactly 400, if it's 4200 counts, then the dpi is 420, or a deviation of +20. Even though there is a margin for user error, it's reliable enough with averaging across a sufficient number of runs.

[Chief Blur Buster]

It's not really based on any user decision or assumption - the test method is pretty objective.

It might just be a "testing disclosure" issue, not a "testing issue". Since the deviations are relative to each other. In other words, was it an arbitrary decision to choose 400dpi as the zero standard, or is it 800dpi, or 1600dpi, or 3200dpi.

Why not 800dpi as the zero standard or 3200dpi as the zero standard, or such?

0%/0.6%/0.6%/1.6% would become something like approximately -1.6%/-1%/-1%/0% if 3200dpi was chosen as the zero-standard instead (like zero-calibrating a bathroom body weighing scale to read "0" properly when nobody is on it). Anyway, I'm just merely wondering why 400dpi is chosen as the zero ("0%") -- the reason was not disclosed. Is it really truly the perfect zero standard, for example?

From what I read, this doesn't seem to be disclosed in the testing disclosure, why 400dpi was the one assigned the zero, rather than another DPI. This leads a false sense of 400dpi being superior. That's why I bring up the issue of testing disclosure;

The user moves the mouse (for example) 10 inches in a straight line, and they use a PC software that measures X-counts reported by the mouse. If it's 4000 counts, then the dpi is exactly 400, if it's 4200 counts, then the dpi is 420, or a deviation of +20. Even though there is a margin for user error, it's reliable enough with averaging across a sufficient number of runs.

Good catch. Yes, thanks for pointing that out.

That would average that any starting-position error out (e.g. where the mouse sensor had memorized a subpixel starting position (rounding off) because last movement placed it between dpi's (e.g. 0.4/400th or 0.6/400th internally in the mouse's update registers). And it ends at 4000/400 (meaning it moved 3999.6 or 4000.4 instead of exactly 4000, due to rounding error). But that's less than 0.1% error, if done over a 10 inch distance.

So the error margin would certainly be coming from somewhere else. (Still a separate thing from arbitrarily-chosen zero standard that is not listed in test disclosure -- I still have a concern about this; because it potentially mis-advertises 400dpi as the "perfect" DPI, when not properly testing-diclosed).

[Razer_TheFiend]

It's not really based on any user decision or assumption - the test method is pretty objective.

It might just be a "testing disclosure" issue, not a "testing issue". Since the deviations are relative to each other. In other words, was it an arbitrary decision to choose 400dpi as the zero standard, or is it 800dpi, or 1600dpi, or 3200dpi.

Why not 800dpi as the zero standard or 3200dpi as the zero standard, or such?

0%/0.6%/0.6%/1.6% would become something like approximately -1.6%/-1%/-1%/0% if 3200dpi was chosen as the zero-standard instead (like zero-calibrating a bathroom body weighing scale to read "0" properly when nobody is on it). Anyway, I'm just merely wondering why 400dpi is chosen as the zero ("0%") -- the reason was not disclosed. Is it really truly the perfect zero standard, for example?

From what I read, this doesn't seem to be disclosed in the testing disclosure, why 400dpi was the one assigned the zero, rather than another DPI. This leads a false sense of 400dpi being superior. That's why I bring up the issue of testing disclosure;

Actually, the deviation is not relative, and 400dpi is not actually the zero standard. The DPI is measured in absolute terms for all settings and the % deviation is calculated from a nominal value. 400dpi just happened to return 0% error.

The poster quoted the test results from a Techpowerup article : https://www.techpowerup.com/review/moun ... -67/5.html

There are several mice (most, actually) where 400dpi also has a non-0 deviation, e.g. : https://www.techpowerup.com/review/drea ... y-s/5.html

In any case, this data is of limited value because the magnitude of variance is also different from unit to unit (of the same mouse) because of tolerances.

[Kaido]

Is this mouse still happening as a consumer product?
Saw a lot of hype at one point and now nothing for a long time.

[lyrill]

Is this mouse still happening as a consumer product?
Saw a lot of hype at one point and now nothing for a long time.

it is coming out very soon as the viper 8khz previously leaked everywhere, which disappoint me obviously but whatever. i saw the podcast and I'm glad to hear that fiend's favorite mouse is pro click and viper isn't 2nd either, but that ergo collab should have been incorporated into either the bav2 or v3. I'm still waiting for that (obviously 8khz too now since )


more importantly I think people need to figure out exactly what game and what dpi range justify/require smoothing, and how much smoothing. again because of a lack of awareness of exactly how well A sensor track on B pad because like it or not currently played titles especially in the circuits where there's such a thing as "pro scene" aka where there's a bunch of, for a lack of a nicer word, "groupies" who pretend they are legit good players while feeling good watching vods all day and grinding those stupid leagues that only 0.01% "gifted" can begin to get paid in, aren't very refreshing mechanically at all

[forii]

Is this mouse wired or wireless?

[lyrill]

Is this mouse wired or wireless?

it's wired it's explained appreciated many times read the thread plz people. <3

[JoseeP]

Hi, I'm about to buy a gaming mouse, but I need it to have the highest polling rate possible, from what I see this future razer product will be since none reaches 8000hz, do you think it is worth waiting a little longer? or buy one of 2000hz? When do you think it will be released? Can you recommend some of the ones that have 2000hz or 3000hz?
Thank you.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Hi, I'm about to buy a gaming mouse, but I need it to have the highest polling rate possible, from what I see this future razer product will be since none reaches 8000hz, do you think it is worth waiting a little longer? or buy one of 2000hz? When do you think it will be released? Can you recommend some of the ones that have 2000hz or 3000hz?
Thank you.

That's silly to buy a lower-poll rate mouse just to have a max-poll equaling what you want.

Just buy the 8000 Hz mouse and configure it to 2000Hz or 4000Hz.

There is no disadvantage of that over a native 2000 Hz or 4000 Hz mouse (which mostly doesn't exist).

The Razer 8K lets you select between 1000, 2000, 4000, 8000 Hz poll rates.

[Brainlet]

Hi, I'm about to buy a gaming mouse, but I need it to have the highest polling rate possible, from what I see this future razer product will be since none reaches 8000hz, do you think it is worth waiting a little longer? or buy one of 2000hz? When do you think it will be released? Can you recommend some of the ones that have 2000hz or 3000hz?
Thank you.

That's silly to buy a lower-poll rate mouse just to have a max-poll equaling what you want.

Just buy the 8000 Hz mouse and configure it to 2000Hz or 4000Hz.

There is no disadvantage of that over a native 2000 Hz or 4000 Hz mouse (which mostly doesn't exist).

The Razer 8K lets you select between 1000, 2000, 4000, 8000 Hz poll rates.

A native 8khz mouse might arguably peform better @ 2khz than a native 2khz mouse @ 2khz due to overhead as well.