Today’s article focuses on measuring mouse latency with the aim of significantly expanding our existing database and providing a sound basis for comparison in the future. The survey was carried out exclusively under practical conditions for gaming use – Bluetooth connections were therefore deliberately omitted. These are not suitable for demanding gaming applications due to their generally higher latency times. Anyone who nevertheless opts for a Bluetooth mouse should be aware of the associated limitations.
Video platforms and other media often state that modern wireless mice with high-frequency dongles can easily compete with wired devices – some even attest to their equivalence in an e-sports context. While this is conceivable in theory, there is often a lack of reliable, reproducible measured values in practice. Many articles are based on subjective impressions or manufacturer specifications that do not necessarily correspond to real-life conditions.
For this reason, a total of 22 mice were recorded in this test series under identical conditions, each with a polling rate of 1000 Hz and using the NVIDIA LDAT measurement system. The results show very different latency behavior in some cases – even for devices with similar technical specifications. These deviations provide information about the actual efficiency of wireless transmission, the processing chain in the device and the role of USB signal processing. The direct comparison between cable and dongle operation in particular reveals interesting differences that are not taken into account in many manufacturers’ specifications. The measured values obtained therefore not only enable a technical classification of individual models, but also provide an objective basis for verifying the often sweeping claim of equivalence between wired and wireless gaming mice.
The LDAT measuring device
This is where the Latency Display Analysis Tool (LDAT) from NVIDIA comes into play – a specialized measuring instrument for the precise recording of end-to-end latency. LDAT measures the time between a physical input, such as a mouse click, and the reaction on the screen, i.e. the first pixel that lights up. This is a complete capture of the so-called system latency, which includes the input device, driver, operating system, game engine, GPU processing and display output.
LDAT combines an external light sensor with a precisely controlled electronic mouse simulation and records both the response time and the consistency of the response over several test runs via a serial interface. The measurement is carried out with high temporal resolution, whereby even differences in the sub-millisecond range can be detected – a clear advantage over software-based measurements, which are often strongly influenced by system load, timer resolution or operating system interventions.
In practice, LDAT is aligned directly to the display and synchronized via a test sequence in which either a standardized click is triggered via the tool itself or a real mouse action is tapped. In the case of this series of measurements, LDAT was used in combination with a 240 Hz monitor, which enables a particularly fine temporal resolution. The hardware basis used, an AOC AGON Pro AG276QZD2, ensures a latency image that is as unadulterated as possible thanks to low display delays.
Many readers will already be familiar with LDAT and its possibilities. For those who have not yet dealt with the topic, I recommend the detailed article by Fritz-Hunter, which I would like to link here. It not only explains the functionality in detail, but also illustrates the practical use of the measuring system:
Wireless vs. wired mice – we measure the latency differences! | NVIDIA LDAT V2 in the field test
74 Antworten
Kommentar
Lade neue Kommentare
Mitglied
Mitglied
Moderator
Mitglied
1
Moderator
Urgestein
Mitglied
Moderator
Urgestein
Moderator
Urgestein
Veteran
Mitglied
Urgestein
Neuling
Mitglied
Urgestein
Urgestein
Alle Kommentare lesen unter igor´sLAB Community →