NVIDIA LDAT V2 and the Sharkoon SGH3 in the test setup
The reason for this was basically the review of an ASUS ROG mouse, which I will present in a separate article. My goal was not just to claim that a wireless mouse is virtually latency-free. A few months ago there was a meeting with NVIDIA about latencies and their measurability. That’s when LDAT was introduced in V2. So it was clear, I need this urgently! Since a few days I finally have this variant with me and can now measure mouse latencies or end-to-end latencies. This will become important in the following, because the actual mouse latency as such cannot be determined with it. But a few words about that in a moment.
With LDAT V2 the possibility was created to record the clicking sound of the mouse by means of a microphone and to start the clock until there is a flash on the screen or the LDAT App. This light is perceived by the camera and the time is stopped. Yes, this means that we measure the entire path from the mouse through the PC to the monitor. This also includes the display with its pixel response time, refresh lag and processing lag. By the way, the last three define the so-called screen input lag! But that would go too far at this point.
In my case, I take the 4-pin connector from my Sharkoon SGH3, connect it to LDAT and place the headset next to the mouse so that the microphone can pick up the mouse click at a short distance. I make sure of this by taking 3 calibration measurements. If the result is always the same, then the measurement setup fits. Then the only question is whether the measured values are also valid. You can do something like this with a variance comparison in the form of an ANOVA. Here I have measured different mice wired and of course also included the wireless. And here are the results:
The ASUS ROG Chakram Core, the Logitec G203 Prodigy and ASUS ROG Pugio II are measured with cable and to compare the variance I measured the ASUS ROG Pugio II still with dongle. All mice were measured via the microphone function of NVIDIA LDAT V2! The null hypothesis is satisfied as the p-value is > 0.05. Now I did an MSA 1 to round it out just to be safe. Both ANOVA and MSA were performed or calculated using a scientific program. Minitab 18, which is also internationally recognized. I work with it almost daily in the automotive industry. If Minitab says the results are valid, then the measurements are virtually beyond doubt.
A side note: If you would do the measurements on a 360 Hz monitor, the result would look different (smaller average value), because the refresh lag is smaller and also the pixel response times should be smaller as a rule. If the response time is not <= 2.7 ms, then the display can basically have 360 Hz refresh rate, but your image will show nice ghosting! A little side note… I did my measurements on the ASUS ROG Swift PG279QM at 240 Hz.
The aim is not, and this should be stressed again here, to achieve the smallest average values. We want to know if there is a difference between with or without cable. What you also have to keep in mind that of course we’re going to see different speed mice here. Where does that end up coming from? On the one hand the installed hardware and on the other hand the software can have an influence. Here, for example, the key reaction time plays a role (also called bounce/debounce time).
So, let’s see which of my so far tested mice is the fastest on the one hand and on the other hand if there is a difference with and without cable. Last page please!
30 Antworten
Kommentar
Lade neue Kommentare
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
Veteran
Veteran
Urgestein
1
Mitglied
Mitglied
Mitglied
Urgestein
Moderator
Moderator
Urgestein
Urgestein
Moderator
Mitglied
Moderator
Urgestein
Alle Kommentare lesen unter igor´sLAB Community →