Does the USB port matter for Keyboard/Mouse?

[AusWolf]

I like using the 2.0 ports whenever possible, just to save the 3.0 and higher ones for other devices that need the bandwidth. Other than that, it doesn't really matter, imo.

 

[dgianstefani]

I like using the 2.0 ports whenever possible, just to save the 3.0 and higher ones for other devices that need the bandwidth. Other than that, it doesn't really matter, imo.

Your mouse polls at 125 Hz maximum, with a click/sensor latency of 15-25 ms, so it wouldn't matter to you since you're nowhere near the 1000 Hz limit of USB 2.0.

Seriously though, that's a lower refresh than your monitor, I'd replace it ASAP unless you're a fan of the 60 Hz gaming effect.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I don't see the point of this, except to be contrary.

As I noted in the text you quoted, these devices should work in any USB port. I also noted with some motherboards, they designate one or two for those devices to ensure they do work in the BIOS Setup Menu (so no need to worry about how one would set the legacy setting).

Contrary to your implied assumption, not all motherboards are newer generation boards. As you noted, "most" no longer designate ports, implying some still do - as noted. And even some still support PS/2 - though typically today, there is just one PS/2 port that is dual function (as in mouse "or" keyboard).

I'm just saying, not that you are wrong or anything. And they don't have to be particularly new, just an UEFI-era motherboard. My old Gigabyte X99 already had this Legacy USB option and supports HIDs indiscriminately on any USB port, it's about 10 years old by now.

 

[AusWolf]

Your mouse polls at 125 Hz maximum, with a click/sensor latency of 15-25 ms, so it wouldn't matter to you since you're nowhere near the 1000 Hz limit of USB 2.0.

Seriously though, that's a lower refresh than your monitor, I'd replace it ASAP unless you're a fan of the 60 Hz gaming effect.

I don't play competitively, so I have no idea what you're talking about. I bought this mouse about 6 months ago, and I absolutely love it.

 

[Onasi]

So why does the same mouse set to a higher polling rate provide better click latency?

For obvious reasons having a higher polling rate will improve consistency of low click latency, rather than simply hoping the click registers at a period of time close to when the mouse reports.

Theoretically, sure. Since not every mouse, wired or wireless, displays the behavior you mention, I still would lean toward it being a function of implementation. Higher polling should still lead to a “better” consistency. But then we are left with a question of whether or not sub-1ms differences are in any way practically relevant beyond just measurements. I personally do not believe so, judging by the fact some of the best CS aimers in the world play at 1k and a winner of the Red Bull aiming tourney won using a wired GPX set at 1k versus people using 4k Gwolves and Razer mice. The benefit is MEASURABLY there, it just doesn’t seem to translate to anything actually perceptible/useful on a human scale.

 

[dgianstefani]

I don't play competitively, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

It's just math. 125 Hz means your mouse transmits data up to 125 times per second. If you make a movement, or press a button, that data won't be transmitted until the next one of those instances. Higher Hz peripherals obviously have lower periods of time in between transmitting data, so movement is smoother and latency is lower, offering a more immersive and competitive experience where the mouse has no noticable delay.

Your monitor refreshes 144 times per second, and the standard for gaming mice is typically 1000 Hz these days, with most offering 2000 Hz or higher. This is because both click latency (where your mouse is between 15-150 times higher latency than competitive mice) and motion tracking rely on more frequently transmitted inputs in order for effects on the screen to be in line with the movement of your hand/mouse, with no perceivable delay or stutter. It's also because there's not much point in having high refresh rate displays if you cannot actually react to any of those extra frames, which is the main complaint against frame generation, input latency is not improved with 120 FPS FG vs 60 Hz native.

Even in 2014, blurbusters was noting this, just with 1000 Hz too.

Theoretically, sure. Since not every mouse, wired or wireless, displays the behavior you mention, I still would lean toward it being a function of implementation. Higher polling should still lead to a “better” consistency. But then we are left with a question of whether or not sub-1ms differences are in any way practically relevant beyond just measurements. I personally do not believe so, judging by the fact some of the best CS aimers in the world play at 1k and a winner of the Red Bull aiming tourney won using a wired GPX set at 1k versus people using 4k Gwolves and Razer mice. The benefit is MEASURABLY there, it just doesn’t seem to translate to anything actually perceptible/useful on a human scale.

It's not theoretical when tests show clear data. There's either no difference, or an improvement in click latency with higher polling rates. The no difference tests would indicate to me that there is more of a flexible polling rate going on, because it's theoretically impossible for 0.1 ms latency to be consistently achieved with 1 ms average latency just from the polling rate.

Whether you believe there is a practical advantage or not is an entirely different argument than whether there is a testable one.

To properly answer this question, note that someone being unable to notice something does not mean it isn't there objectively, or does not provide an objective advantage. The latter is most definitely true of 8000 Hz polling... The greatest effect of 8000 Hz may indeed not be observed in terms of absolute latency, but rather general positional accuracy and smoother cursor feel, more specifically in games requiring high precision regarding click timing. Particularly games supporting sub-frame input will benefit to a greater degree from 8000 Hz, such as Overwatch or Diabotical with their respective settings enabled.

My thoughts would be simply along the lines of "a competitive gamer would have reflexes/digital coordination good enough to enjoy and benefit from lower latency hardware, whereas your average grandma will likely be happy with a mouse that has a left click." Two different markets. Just as how 60 Hz or even 30 Hz/FPS monitors and gaming experiences are acceptable to some people, or those who literally will argue until they're blue in the face that "the human eye can't see high refresh rates", whereas other people won't even use a PC that can't deliver a minimum of 120, or higher. My rational mind suggests that there aren't many professional level players that compete with 60 Hz hardware and 125 Hz mice, so even if you disagree with the math for some reason, perhaps looking towards the choices made by people whose livelihood depends on them winning games would provide ample evidence.

 

[Onasi]

It's not theoretical when tests show clear data. There's either no difference, or an improvement in click latency with higher polling rates. The no difference tests would indicate to me that there is more of a flexible polling rate going on, because it's theoretically impossible for 0.1 ms latency to be consistently achieved with 1 ms average latency just from the polling rate.

Polling rate is flexible by its very nature. There’s a reason why for higher rates the recommendation is to increase DPI - you wouldn’t saturate it other way. If I remember correctly, there was a test done a couple of years ago by someone in the aiming community, on a Voltaic sub perhaps, with a 4K Razer dongle and mouse running some of the most stressful scenarios. Conclusion? The average polling rate never went above 3K in actual use. It also didn’t really translate to better scores than the 1K tests. So while you are correct that the MEASUREMENTS show a difference and it IS there, I am far more interested in practical applications.

My thoughts would be simply along the lines of "a competitive gamer would have reflexes/digital coordination good enough to enjoy and benefit from lower latency hardware, whereas your average grandma will likely be happy with a mouse that has a left click." Two different markets. Just as how 60 Hz or even 30 Hz/FPS monitors and gaming experiences are acceptable to some people, or those who literally will argue until they're blue in the face that "the human eye can't see high refresh rates", whereas other people won't even use a PC that can't deliver a minimum of 120, or higher. My rational mind suggests that there aren't many professional level players that compete with 60 Hz hardware and 125 Hz mice, so even if you disagree with the math for some reason, perhaps looking towards the choices people who's livelihood depends on them winning games would provide ample evidence.

I already mentioned that some of the best players in the world, plenty of them, in fact, don’t go above 1K. This doesn’t seem to make a difference for them. So, unlike higher refresh screens, there isn’t any conclusive evidence or consensus that rates above 1K actually matter. I don’t recall stating that we should all use 125Hz or whatever, though. At this point, you seem to be arguing against some imaginary point I never made. The benefits of going from 125 to 1000 are undeniable. The benefit of going from 1000 to 8000 seems like it should be massive, but due to how math works out at the very best when fully utilized (unlikely) you gain a 0.75ms reduction. To quote you, my rational mind suggests that even to the very best player in the world this is an irrelevant difference.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I don’t recall stating that we should all use 125Hz or whatever, though. At this point, you seem to be arguing against some imaginary point I never made. The benefits of going from 125 to 1000 are undeniable. The benefit of going from 1000 to 8000 seems like it should be massive, but due to how math works out at the very best when fully utilized (unlikely) you gain a 0.75ms reduction. To quote you, my rational mind suggests that even to the very best player in the world this is an irrelevant difference.

Allow me, then. The theoretics are nice, but fact remains the vast majority of engines are problematic and you should keep your polling rate to 125-250 most of the time, unless the game you are running specifically supports such high polling rates. Don't forget that most of the time games are designed for consoles first and foremost. Excessive polling rates leads to stutter and lower frame rates because input thread handling is utter dogshit in 8 out of 10 engines, with the ninth there just not benefitting from it.

 

[dgianstefani]

Polling rate is flexible by its very nature. There’s a reason why for higher rates the recommendation is to increase DPI - you wouldn’t saturate it other way.

It's flexible up until the upper limits of the polling rate.

Please don't try and argue that this flexibility means a 1000 Hz mouse will have an average latency comparable to an 8000 Hz one, assuming that the implementation is actually consistently sending out those 0.125 ms reports and isn't one of those duplicate packet "2000 Hz" mice certain vendors released that have zero benefits over 1000 Hz, rather likely being detrimental as the CPU receives double the data workload for zero practical benefit.

I already mentioned that some of the best players in the world, plenty of them, in fact, don’t go above 1K. This doesn’t seem to make a difference for them. So, unlike higher refresh screens, there isn’t any conclusive evidence or consensus that rates above 1K actually matter. I don’t recall stating that we should all use 125Hz or whatever, though. At this point, you seem to be arguing against some imaginary point I never made. The benefits of going from 125 to 1000 are undeniable. The benefit of going from 1000 to 8000 seems like it should be massive, but due to how math works out at the very best when fully utilized (unlikely) you gain a 0.75ms reduction. To quote you, my rational mind suggests that even to the very best player in the world this is an irrelevant difference.

So, for these best players in the world, do you think they would choose something with a higher latency or a lower latency? To me it's as simple as that.

If you want to look past raw latency, there's more benefits.
From TPU reviews:

The greatest effect of 8000 Hz may indeed not be observed in terms of absolute latency, but rather general positional accuracy and smoother cursor feel, more specifically in games requiring high precision regarding click timing.

Allow me, then. The theoretics are nice, but fact remains the vast majority of engines are problematic and you should keep your polling rate to 125-250 most of the time, unless the game you are running specifically supports such high polling rates.

This isn't the 1990s. I've literally encountered zero issues running high polling rates.

Don't forget that most of the time games are designed for consoles first and foremost.

Also debatable but hard to provably say one way or the other. Regardless, while a percentage of games may or may not have support for high frequency inputs (I'd lean towards a small percentage, growing smaller), your computer certainly does, and that end to end latency chain is improved at higher polling rates, unless you have a CPU literally too slow to keep up.

 

[Klemc]

I love muy G502 Hero (i think it"s the best mouse in the world, past present future) , i set it to 500, i could try 100 again, to see (240hz monitor), OMM is the Logitech tool to use, portable & all mouse functions (even led on off) without hub thingie.

Or 250 ?.. will it slow it down bc at high profile a mm goes thtough the 1440p

Or even 240 since it's monitor hz !?

 

[Dr. Dro]

This isn't the 1990s. I've literally encountered zero issues running high polling rates. Also debatable but hard to provably say one way or the other. Regardless, while a percentage of games may or may not have support for high frequency inputs (I'd lean towards a small percentage, growing smaller), your computer certainly does, and that end to end latency chain is improved at higher polling rates, unless you have a CPU literally too slow to keep up.

You just don't play enough Japanese games I reckon. Over there programmers are still fond of binding engine tick rates and simulation speed with frame rates, does it really surprise you that high polling rates you'd normally never see outside of an office system or a gaming console cause trouble? Load Special K and see the wreck that high polling rates can cause on some games.

 

[dgianstefani]

You just don't play enough Japanese games I reckon. Over there programmers are still fond of binding engine tick rates and simulation speed with frame rates, does it really surprise you that high polling rates you'd normally never see outside of an office system or a gaming console cause trouble? Load Special K and see the wreck that high polling rates can cause on some games.

Ah well, the Japanese and their ancient game engines, or the gacha game/romantic graphic novel stuff/flying anime girl "RPG" genre doesn't really appeal to me anyway, nor does emulating console games or running aftermarket injectors/modifiers such as Special K. Engine tick rate/simulation speed bound with frame rates is a relic of 1980s gaming, and it should stay there.

 

[Onasi]

So, for these best players in the world, do you think they would choose something with a higher latency or a lower latency? To me it's as simple as that.

And you are blatantly wrong here. Pros use what’s comfortable for them and what fits them. Simple as. It’s, for them, more important than any minuscule theoretical advantage. Otherwise, we’d see them all use the best measured mice, Wootings with Rapid Trigger enabled, HD800S cans for the soundstage and modern mousepads. But that’s not the case, at all. Many are rocking old Zowies, QCK, GSR or G640 pads, cheap IEMs, the list goes on.

 

[dgianstefani]

And you are blatantly wrong here. Pros use what’s comfortable for them and what fits them. Simple as. It’s, for them, more important than any minuscule theoretical advantage. Otherwise, we’d see them all use the best measured mice, Wootings with Rapid Trigger enabled, HD800S cans for the soundstage and modern mousepads. But that’s not the case, at all. Many are rocking old Zowies, QCK, GSR or G640 pads, cheap IEMs, the list goes on.

Do you have competitive experience?

I do, I captained/played for Swansea Storm and we won the NSE (national student esports) USL (university siege league). That's against more than 100 teams from universities across the UK. The other year I was involved we didn't win but went to the semi finals.

If I'm so blatantly wrong, and these pros prefer nostalgic hardware, perhaps you could tell me what kind of hardware these pros use. Every time I check it seems to be the fastest available/what their manager/sponsor can get their hands on/what the tournament organizers decide, that offers the most advantages and is within the rules, obviously ergonomic fit is part of this performance calculation, but it's not the only part, and thankfully there are many different shaped options available that have high performance.

There's CPI/settings migration software that allows identical muscle memory settings to be transferred across different hardware, primarily because pros and enthusiasts do not, in fact, use the same "comfortable" hardware they've always used, even between different games.

You can talk about "miniscule" theoretical advantages, but the reality is different mice with the same on paper specs have vastly different performance characteristics. You're talking about theoretical latency limits, yet two "1000 Hz" mice can have latency results of 1ms, and also 15 ms +.

Wootings with rapid trigger/Razer snaptap for counterstrafing in games such as Counter Strike are insanely popular for pro grade hardware. Many individuals have actually talked about banning tech like these because they give an "unfair" advantage. They have in fact been banned when resulting from macros, but the hardware that uses this kind of thing natively is allowed.

 

[Klemc]

What is the highest USB-4 mouse ?

 

[lexluthermiester]

The only exceptions to the rule of “just use USB 2.0” are the high-polling mice and keyboards. By that I mean those above 1000 Hz.

That's not exactly true. USB2.0, by the specs, can support signal polling rates of at least 3600hz with minimal latency. This presumes proper and optimal implementation of and adherence to the USB signaling spec. Of course, not all USB controllers are made equal or to the same exacting standards. Some are made "good enough" to work fast enough and stable enough. Additionally, the number of the types of devices you're referring to represent far less than 1% of what's out there. 99% of everything out in the wild polls at rates no higher than 500hz.

However, your point is valid from the perspective of the fact that USB3+ does and will have much better signaling speeds and thus much less data exchange latency. So high polling devices "can" work better under some situations. Competitive extreme gaming is the only one I can think of.

 

[Vayra86]

LOL we are defending 8000hz nonsense now on the basis of 0.x ms 'advantages' ... lmao some people really are in too deep here. Do they play better? Nope. Its a complete nothing burger.

Fools and money parted, its hilarious

 

[AusWolf]

It's just math. 125 Hz means your mouse transmits data up to 125 times per second. If you make a movement, or press a button, that data won't be transmitted until the next one of those instances. Higher Hz peripherals obviously have lower periods of time in between transmitting data, so movement is smoother and latency is lower, offering a more immersive and competitive experience where the mouse has no noticable delay.

Your monitor refreshes 144 times per second, and the standard for gaming mice is typically 1000 Hz these days, with most offering 2000 Hz or higher. This is because both click latency (where your mouse is between 15-150 times higher latency than competitive mice) and motion tracking rely on more frequently transmitted inputs in order for effects on the screen to be in line with the movement of your hand/mouse, with no perceivable delay or stutter. It's also because there's not much point in having high refresh rate displays if you cannot actually react to any of those extra frames, which is the main complaint against frame generation, input latency is not improved with 120 FPS FG vs 60 Hz native.

Even in 2014, blurbusters was noting this, just with 1000 Hz too.

View attachment 355906

This I understand. The part I don't get is if I have a certain PC setup with a certain display and a certain set of peripherals that I like, then why do you have to tell me that it's not good?

To be honest, I don't care what Hz my display or my mouse polling rate is. I bought this monitor because it's an ultrawide, and I bought this mouse because it's comfortable, and has a weighted scroll wheel and good battery life. I don't feel anything of my mouse polling rate, and even if my monitor was 60 Hz, I couldn't care less. I'm actually playing Nier: Automata right now, which is locked to 60 FPS by its engine.

We all want different things from our hardware, so I don't see why you feel obliged to tell me that my experience is crap without knowing anything about the games I play or the way I play them.

 

[dgianstefani]

This I understand. The part I don't get is if I have a certain PC setup with a certain display and a certain set of peripherals that I like, then why do you have to tell me that it's not good?

To be honest, I don't care what Hz my display or my mouse polling rate is. I bought this monitor because it's an ultrawide, and I bought this mouse because it's comfortable, and has a weighted scroll wheel and good battery life. I don't feel anything of my mouse polling rate, and even if my monitor was 60 Hz, I couldn't care less. I'm actually playing Nier: Automata right now, which is locked to 60 FPS by its engine.

We all want different things from our hardware, so I don't see why you feel obliged to tell me that my experience is crap without knowing anything about the games I play or the way I play them.

Well it's like when you were talking about how RAM speed is meaningless for X3D, but then it turns out you play single player games at 60 FPS. There's nothing wrong with that, it just puts context on what you say.

The context of the hardware/settings you use is relevant to whether it's possible for you to notice the improved experiences available (assuming you have the hardware required, and are playing with the resolution/frame rates where it makes a difference.

It's like if I said "well I don't understand why anyone would buy a fast car" when I live in a country where the speed limit is 70 mph. Thing is, some people race competitively, or live in places like Germany, where they can actually go faster than that.

The other thing is I never told you your experience was crap, that's just you putting words into my mouth somewhat defensively. I suggested you get a mouse that has modern performance characteristics, and explained why.

 

[lexluthermiester]

A point of clarity, debating 125hz polling on a signal spec that, by default, has a transmission rate of 480,000,000 bits per second amounts to a non-issue. Even at the old USB1.1 spec of 12,000,000 bps signal rate, 125hz is still trivial.

The key point is latency. IF you have a higher bit rate, the devices connected don't have to wait as long for the next signal cycle if it's connected to a faster signaling bus. So while the 12mbps of USB1.1 is good and will provide and excellent input experience, 480mbs will greatly reduce signal latency and make the responsiveness better. 6gbps will do this further.

However, diminishing returns are a thing. The higher the signal rate, the less of an effect it will have on human input devices. USB2.0 is so fast in regards to HID parts that anything more is unnecessary and users are extremely unlikely to notice any difference at all. Yet plugging those devices into USB3+ will do them no harm whatsoever.

 

[Onasi]

Do you have competitive experience?

Yes, but this was way back before our current time. Used to play UT2004 and TF2 competitively at a semi-pro level. For obvious reasons, I am not sure how relevant this is and, as such, have not brought it up. I don’t like personal appeals to authority.

If I'm so blatantly wrong, and these pros prefer nostalgic hardware, perhaps you could tell me what kind of hardware these pros use. Every time I check it seems to be the fastest available/what their manager/sponsor can get their hands on/what the tournament organizers decide, that offers the most advantages and is within the rules, obviously ergonomic fit is part of this performance calculation, but it's not the only part, and thankfully there are many different shaped options available that have high performance.

Prosettings are a thing. Anecdotally, S1mple used a GPX at 1000Hz. Recently switched to GPX2 at 2000 for absolutely no reason seeing as he uses 400DPI. TenZ uses same GPX at a 1000. So does Sh1ro. Zywoo uses 4K, again, at 400DPI, which is questionable, I assume he wants to bypass the latency weirdness we discussed above on his Xlite. From what I’ve seen, the GPX/GPX2 is wildly popular and it’s all due to the shape. It’s hardly the best mouse in terms of click latency (which, remember, is what we’re discussing). I think we forget that pros don’t really follow the hardware as much as enthusiasts, who gaslit themselves into believing that the microscopic improvements touted as features on modern input devices really matter. I would not be surprised if all these pros could use “measurably” worse mice and feel no reduction in performance whatsoever.

What is the highest USB-4 mouse ?

No such thing.

That's not exactly true. USB2.0, by the specs, can support signal polling rates of at least 3600hz with minimal latency. This presumes proper and optimal implementation of and adherence to the USB signaling spec. Of course, not all USB controllers are made equal or to the same exacting standards. Some are made "good enough" to work fast enough and stable enough. Additionally, the number of the types of devices you're referring to represent far less than 1% of what's out there. 99% of everything out in the wild polls at rates no higher than 500hz.

That’s true, but it’s less about sheer polling rate here and more about lower timings for interrupts. USB 2.0 is inherently limited in this regard. It’s just EHCI vs XHCI. Native 2.0 ports are EHCI only and as such have a lower limit of 125 μs, while XHCI can go lower. It’s much of muchness, in the end, but if you want to eke out every theoretical drop of latency reduction (no matter the practical considerations) - that’s the way.

 

[dgianstefani]

Prosettings are a thing. Anecdotally, S1mple used a GPX at 1000Hz. Recently switched to GPX2 at 2000 for absolutely no reason seeing as he uses 400DPI.

As we've been discussing, click latency tends to go down when Hz goes up, assuming the rest of the hardware (switch, MCU etc.) can keep up. Even if he's not using the DPI required to saturate the motion sensitivity improvements higher Hz offer. There's also other improvements the GPX2 has over the GPX.

The rest is opinion. If you think higher performance is gaslighting, and want to continue playing down recent advancements with various "irrelevant", "miniscule", "microscopic" or other commentary on hardware, that's up to you.

 

[lexluthermiester]

That’s true, but it’s less about sheer polling rate here and more about lower timings for interrupts.

As we've been discussing, click latency tends to go down when Hz goes up.

Agreed and that is exactly what latency is about. But as mentioned earlier, diminishing returns are a thing.

 

[dgianstefani]

Agreed and that is exactly what latency is about. But as mentioned earlier, diminishing returns are a thing.

Sure, but I do get a bit tired of "the human eye can only see 24 FPS" equivalent gang poking fun at hardware they have 1) never used 2) do not have appropriate accompanying hardware/games (CPU, monitor, RAM etc.) and 3) can't play at a level high enough to appreciate.

You may have noticed that at no point during this discussion have I tried to imply that 8000 Hz is 8x better than 1000 Hz, these things don't scale linearly in terms of appreciable performance. Just pointing out the factually incorrect statements or disingenuous ones based in inexperience and mockery.

 

[Onasi]

@dgianstefani
And, as we discussed, this isn’t an absolute thing and plenty of mice display the same low click latency regardless of polling rate. We are going in circles here. I already put my cards down when I said that I believe such behavior to be caused by MCU/firmware implementation and not solely or even necessarily at all by increasing the polling rate inherently. There is nothing, as we’ve seen, that stops a mouse from having 0.1 ms click latency (or even negative one as per the TPU table) while being still at 1000Hz polling. While I agree with you that THEORETICALLY higher polling might make said latency more consistent, this doesn’t seemingly translate to anything meaningful. The OP1 8K had a deviation of… 0.0ms from its 0.12ms click latency. Regardless of polling. If we’re in the territory of measurements that even LDAT can’t provide… Well, I would bet that no perceptible differences exist at this point.

Sure, but I do get a bit tired of "the human eye can only see 24 FPS" equivalent gang poking fun at hardware they have 1) never used 2) do not have appropriate accompanying hardware/games (CPU, monitor, RAM etc.) and 3) can't play at a level high enough to appreciate.

And I thought we were having a nice talk…