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

Everything about latency. Tips, testing methods, mouse lag, display lag, game engine lag, network lag, whole input lag chain, VSYNC OFF vs VSYNC ON, and more! Input Lag Articles on Blur Busters.
Locked
User avatar
Razer_TheFiend
Manufacturer
Posts: 32
Joined: 01 Oct 2020, 11:51

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

Post by Razer_TheFiend » 05 Oct 2020, 22:42

Chief Blur Buster wrote:
05 Oct 2020, 08:22

1600dpi at 0.5 feels better than 800dpi at 1.0.

This is because games is able to render in a subpixel way.
Based on my experience, majority of games don't actually do that. But yes, some of the modern games do (e.g. Valorant, Apex Legends).
Chief Blur Buster wrote:
05 Oct 2020, 08:22
Test Cases
1. Slower drifting movements (like sniper): 1.0sens @ 400dpi versus 0.25sens @ 1600dpi creates visible differences on all my monitors at all refresh rates.
2. Medium TestUFO-speed movements (Eye trackable turns): Need approx MPRT 1ms or less to notice

To be able to tell, remember to use bigger dramatic differences to punch geometrically up the diminishing curve of returns (much like 1000Hz vs 8000Hz).
Instead of [email protected] vs [email protected], please compare:
- [email protected] vs [email protected]
Maybe 400 x 1.0 vs 20000 x 0.02 for the most dramatic effect? ;)
Chief Blur Buster wrote:
05 Oct 2020, 08:22
You know when you're using a sniper in your favourite FPS shooter game, from say, 1000 meters away from a tiny target near the horizon, and the target is moving slowly horizontally? And you have to slow-track your sniper lens sideways at a few pixels per second? Slow aim-tracking manoevers. Here, even 1-pixel steppy-steppy-steppy is noticeable, so sub-1.0 sensitivity settings here REALLY helps make it pixelless, with subpixel mouse motion antialiasing! It's terrible if you dare to use sensitivity 2.0 or higher, but numbers below 1.0 can begin to become a noticeable improvement during these situations.
I'm not so sure about this because the viewport is different in zoomed and unzoomed views. Is the zoom_sensitivity_ratio = 1.0 in your test?

NDUS
Posts: 71
Joined: 12 Aug 2019, 16:05

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

Post by NDUS » 06 Oct 2020, 02:21

Razer_TheFiend wrote:
05 Oct 2020, 22:42
I'm not so sure about this because the viewport is different in zoomed and unzoomed views. Is the zoom_sensitivity_ratio = 1.0 in your test?
At long ranges, you do get way better results with high DPI:

https://youtu.be/NUiGkDB_48s?t=151
vs
https://youtu.be/NUiGkDB_48s?t=257

A lot of good players who play at 400/800DPI don't even realize this, because they compensate for it by making heavy use of their movement keys to make fine adjustments of aim at long range. You move your mouse about 90% into the correct location, and as "vertically correct" as possible, then strafe to get the crosshairs onto the enemy. Obviously this is not ideal, but it covers up some of the inferiority of low DPI at range.

Competitive gamers subconsciously adjust for the limits of hardware without even realizing it. They simply test which aiming strategies result in hits, and which do not - and in a Darwinian way, the strategies which favorably work around hardware limitations are the ones that win and get passed on. I realized after moving from a 1khz mouse to a 8khz mouse that I had been subtly trained by 1khz mice not to attempt flicks past a certain distance. I always chocked it up to "well, I guess the aiming odds just aren't good past that range," except when I swapped to 8khz the range got much further out. I realized then that my brain had adapted for all those years to a particular hardware limitation. Competitive gaming is filled with this. The specific speed at which they pan their camera around to maintain visual acuity, the specific way they strafe their characters, and yes, in particular, the way they aim & shoot - all of this is influenced heavily by the properties of gamers' hardware in ways that are not immediately obvious.

rasmas
Posts: 148
Joined: 03 Jan 2018, 15:25

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

Post by rasmas » 06 Oct 2020, 08:51

NDUS wrote:
06 Oct 2020, 02:21
Razer_TheFiend wrote:
05 Oct 2020, 22:42
I'm not so sure about this because the viewport is different in zoomed and unzoomed views. Is the zoom_sensitivity_ratio = 1.0 in your test?
At long ranges, you do get way better results with high DPI:

https://youtu.be/NUiGkDB_48s?t=151
vs
https://youtu.be/NUiGkDB_48s?t=257

A lot of good players who play at 400/800DPI don't even realize this, because they compensate for it by making heavy use of their movement keys to make fine adjustments of aim at long range. You move your mouse about 90% into the correct location, and as "vertically correct" as possible, then strafe to get the crosshairs onto the enemy. Obviously this is not ideal, but it covers up some of the inferiority of low DPI at range.

Competitive gamers subconsciously adjust for the limits of hardware without even realizing it. They simply test which aiming strategies result in hits, and which do not - and in a Darwinian way, the strategies which favorably work around hardware limitations are the ones that win and get passed on. I realized after moving from a 1khz mouse to a 8khz mouse that I had been subtly trained by 1khz mice not to attempt flicks past a certain distance. I always chocked it up to "well, I guess the aiming odds just aren't good past that range," except when I swapped to 8khz the range got much further out. I realized then that my brain had adapted for all those years to a particular hardware limitation. Competitive gaming is filled with this. The specific speed at which they pan their camera around to maintain visual acuity, the specific way they strafe their characters, and yes, in particular, the way they aim & shoot - all of this is influenced heavily by the properties of gamers' hardware in ways that are not immediately obvious.
I'm a bit confused:
Higher DPI on lower game sensitivity is more acurate but on lower DPI (400/800) if we get a higher polling rate (8000Hz), will we get more acuracy too?

I've tried higher DPIs but is a bit annoying as game menus seem to no use ingame sensitivity, and some games cannot be adjusted on sensitivity, so, at the end if 8000Hz polling rate gives same (maybe better?) result i would prefer it.

NDUS
Posts: 71
Joined: 12 Aug 2019, 16:05

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

Post by NDUS » 06 Oct 2020, 09:19

rasmas wrote:
06 Oct 2020, 08:51
I'm a bit confused:
Higher DPI on lower game sensitivity is more acurate but on lower DPI (400/800) if we get a higher polling rate (8000Hz), will we get more acuracy too?
DPI and polling rate are completely different things, they aren't related. Higher polling rate doesn't do anything abnout the problems created by low DPI.

rasmas
Posts: 148
Joined: 03 Jan 2018, 15:25

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

Post by rasmas » 06 Oct 2020, 10:37

NDUS wrote:
06 Oct 2020, 09:19
rasmas wrote:
06 Oct 2020, 08:51
I'm a bit confused:
Higher DPI on lower game sensitivity is more acurate but on lower DPI (400/800) if we get a higher polling rate (8000Hz), will we get more acuracy too?
DPI and polling rate are completely different things, they aren't related. Higher polling rate doesn't do anything abnout the problems created by low DPI.
So, what would higher polling rate do? (as i said i'm a bit confused :D ;) ).

User avatar
lyrill
Posts: 384
Joined: 06 Oct 2020, 10:37

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

Post by lyrill » 06 Oct 2020, 10:54

Razer_TheFiend wrote:
02 Oct 2020, 09:36
MaxTendency wrote:
02 Oct 2020, 09:26
Razer_TheFiend wrote:
02 Oct 2020, 08:05
1. Not something that's planned at the moment. There is no evidence (that I'm aware of) that "static" polling rate does anything more than keep the CPU perpetually busy. No point in keeping the CPU pinned even when there's nothing to report (even when the mouse is idle).
Could you clarify this a bit? Have you guys studied and found no improvement going from adaptive to static polling or is this more of a theory?

From my understanding with an adaptive polling if you move your mouse slowly it doesn't report it at a rate which has been set. For example here the mouse is set to 500hz but if I *continuously* move my mouse at a slow rate the polling never really reaches 500hz.

Image

So having a static polling would in theory make the mouse more responsive when moving at a lower speed or making micro adjustment, or is that not correct and I have a flawed understanding of it?
It's not a "theory", it's just simple observation backed by data.

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.
which is why people should understand that as GPU/Mem manufacturers pushes @ high resolution along with game engine providers @ huge gamescape and mobile market ain't going away any time soon meaning SOMEDAY people will all realize that mobile high HZ is literally frowning on PCMR with literally no retina gameplay, let alone 800 PPI + retina gameplay....and the remnants of "royale" games still lingers on(mavericks proving grounds, fortnite,bfv,blop4,apex,hyperscape to name a very few) , including everyone who worked game server structure @ google cloud and affiliates------with all these underlying inevitability, PCMR/ESPORT should adopt to sub pixel screen imaging meaning completely analog and organic display aspirations, which bridges the gap between currently absurd "rich man game" 8k that doesn't even run stable 60 fps on 3090 in select games, and archaic pixel clicking simulator game, regardless of how many people insist that certain titles shall never die, cs did transition to csgo did it not? and dota to dota 2? And quake somewhat to qc and other titles and beyond? I was never interested in eye candy, playing PUBG on a competitive level as it was designed to be in its og ways (ffa elim no respawn, solo duh) (and soon to return ) has indeed shown me and everyone else who gets it (not that those who coined ARMA the definitive PCMR game/now squadrons continuing the lineage of freelancer/unfinished star citizen) didn't know long ago-----that it is important, and what you guys discussed here about static maxed poll rate, it does matter. If you were quoting 8khz max, then a standard 4 times(2 x 2) density retina solution already demands that uppage from 4khz.

User avatar
lyrill
Posts: 384
Joined: 06 Oct 2020, 10:37

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

Post by lyrill » 06 Oct 2020, 11:12

dup post , ignore plz (still don't see a delete button)
Last edited by lyrill on 19 Feb 2021, 08:58, edited 1 time in total.

ffs_
Posts: 47
Joined: 24 Jul 2020, 00:57

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

Post by ffs_ » 06 Oct 2020, 11:20

I use 400 DPI, 1000 hz and 1.8 sensitivity in CS:GO. Tried to play with 0.45 & 1600 DPI, but it was almost impossible to aim. Perhaps I'm too used to 400 DPI after 20 years of playing... or high DPI is rather suitable for high sensitivity players (1000+ eDPI) and doesn't make too much sense for those who prefer low sensitivity. Or should I get out of my comfort zone and force myself to get used to 1600 dpi just because it supposed to be "better" in theory? 🤔🤔🤔

PixelDuck87
Posts: 87
Joined: 28 Apr 2020, 11:25

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

Post by PixelDuck87 » 06 Oct 2020, 11:40

ffs_ wrote:
06 Oct 2020, 11:20
I use 400 DPI, 1000 hz and 1.8 sensitivity in CS:GO. Tried to play with 0.45 & 1600 DPI, but it was almost impossible to aim. Perhaps I'm too used to 400 DPI after 20 years of playing... or high DPI is rather suitable for high sensitivity players (1000+ eDPI) and doesn't make too much sense for those who prefer low sensitivity. Or should I get out of my comfort zone and force myself to get used to 1600 dpi just because it supposed to be "better" in theory? 🤔🤔🤔
I find lower dpi works as a "filter" for me, it doesn't pick up micro-movements as much. Like how its easier to draw a straight line with 400dpi than 1600 dpi. Since my aim movements are more like Z pattern rather than S pattern i'd much rather prefer low dpi also...

User avatar
lyrill
Posts: 384
Joined: 06 Oct 2020, 10:37

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

Post by lyrill » 06 Oct 2020, 12:36

and just to add to that whole spiel about ppi, there's always people saying that "oh it's pc, we don't need to look closer cus we didn't"
, yeah, genius, you didn't because you didn't have retina. if people don't make 1khz 1600dpi 1080p 144hz, we'd still be stuck at 125khz, 400dpi, 640 resolution screen at 50hz(punching random numbers here really...doesn't matter at this point much), point is, WHEN you do have better gear, you WILL look closer cus YOU CAN. the whole point of mobile stuff was that people can get closer to tech. well, now you can get closer with pcmr too, with 15cm sniping action retina screen, 5.0 eyesight can see near 600 ppi, 5.3 eyesight a whopping 1164 ppi.

Locked