Sensor and Performance

The Corsair Katar Elite Wireless is equipped with the Marksman sensor, whose designation is PixArt PAW3393-T4QU, and which I believe to be based on the PAW3399. According to specifications, the Marksman is capable of up to 26,000 CPI, as well as a maximum tracking speed of 650 IPS, which equals 16.51 m/s. Out of the box, five pre-defined CPI steps are available: 400, 800, 1200, 1600, and 3000.

All testing was done on the latest firmware (5.8.16/5.6.126). As such, results obtained on earlier firmware versions may differ from those presented hereafter.

CPI Accuracy

"CPI" (short for counts per inch) describes the number of counts registered by the mouse if it is moved exactly an inch. There are several factors (firmware, mounting height of the sensor not meeting specifications, mouse feet thickness, mousing surface, among others) which may contribute to nominal CPI not matching actual CPI. It is impossible to always achieve a perfect match, but ideally, nominal and actual CPI should differ as little as possible. In this test, I'm determining whether this is the case or not. However, please keep in mind that said variance will still differ from unit to unit, so your mileage may vary.


I've restricted my testing to the four most common CPI steps, which are 400, 800, 1600, and 3200. As you can see, deviation is exclusively negative and decently low, which is a good result overall. In order to account for the measured deviation, adjusted steps of 400, 800, 1650, and 3300 CPI have been used for testing.

2000 Hz USB Polling: Does it work?

Corsair promises a USB polling rate of 2000 Hz on the Katar Elite Wireless, both in wired and 2.4 GHz mode. Now, the question is: Does it work? The short answer is no. First of all, the Katar Elite Wireless is detected as a full-speed device, which already calls the ability to deliver actual 2000 Hz polling into question. Looking at an interval plot then removes any remaining doubt:



As you can see, the mouse simply sends two identical updates in every packet, both in wired and 2.4 GHz mode. Doing so serves no purpose other than faking readings. In actuality, no additional data is submitted, thus rendering the 2000 Hz polling functionally equivalent to 1000 Hz polling. For comparison, this is how things are looking on Corsair's own M65 RGB Ultra, a high-speed device capable of true 2000 Hz polling:


The difference is palpable to where no further discussion is necessary. Accordingly, I'll stick with 1000 Hz for the remainder of my testing.

Motion Delay

"Motion delay" encompasses all kinds of sensor lag. Any further sources of input delay will not be recorded in this test. The main thing I'll be looking for in this test is sensor smoothing, which describes an averaging of motion data across several capture frames in order to reduce jitter at higher CPI values, increasing motion delay along with it. The goal here is to have as little smoothing as possible. As there is no way to accurately measure motion delay absolutely, it can only be done by comparison with a control subject that has been determined to have among the lowest possible motion delay. In this case, the control subject is a G403, whose PMW3366 has no visible smoothing across the entire CPI range. Note that the Katar Elite Wireless is moved first and thus receives a slight head start.

Testing is restricted to 2.4 GHz mode as Bluetooth is not suitable for non-casual gaming applications.

Wired testing

First, I'm looking at two xCounts plots—generated at 1600 and 26,000 CPI—to quickly gauge whether there is any smoothing, which would be indicated by any visible "kinks." Given how messy tracking is at 26,000 CPI, gauging smoothing becomes difficult if not impossible. We'll have to turn to xSum testing to see what's up.


Furthermore, and most curiously, tracking quality is a function of velocity. The left plot represents high velocity, while the right one represents low velocity.


In order to determine motion delay, I'm looking at xSum plots generated at 1600, 9000, and 26000 CPI. The line further to the left denotes the sensor with less motion delay. 1600 CPI shows no motion delay differential. At and above 9000 CPI, the first level of smoothing is applied, resulting in a motion delay differential of 6 ms. The second level is applied at and above 16,000 CPI, resulting in a differential of 13 ms, which holds true all the way up to 26,000 CPI.

Wireless testing

Tracking takes a slight hit upon switching to wireless, even at comparable velocity.


Keeping the motion delay differential in wired mode established above in mind, I can measure a wireless delay of roughly 1.5–2 ms, which is worse than what the Sabre RGB Pro Wireless was able to do, albeit still respectable given the lack of a wireless extender.

Speed-related Accuracy Variance (SRAV)

What people typically mean when they talk about "acceleration" is speed-related accuracy variance (or short SRAV). It's not about the mouse having a set amount of inherent positive or negative acceleration, but about the cursor not traveling the same distance if the mouse is moved the same physical distance at different speeds. The easiest way to test this is by comparison with a control subject that is known to have very low SRAV, which in this case is the G403. As you can see from the plot, no displacement between the two cursor paths can be observed, which confirms that SRAV is very low.

Perfect Control Speed

Perfect Control Speed (or PCS for short) is the maximum speed up to which the mouse and its sensor can be moved without the sensor malfunctioning in any way. I've only managed to hit a measly 5 m/s (which is within the proclaimed PCS range), at which no sign of the sensor malfunctioning can be observed.

Polling Rate Stability

Considering the Katar Elite Wireless is usable as a wired mouse as well, I'll be testing polling rate stability for both wired and wireless use.

Wired testing


All four available polling rates (125/250/500/1000 Hz) look and perform fine. Polling stability is unaffected by any RGB lighting effect.

Wireless testing
For wired mice, polling rate stability merely concerns the wired connection between the mouse (SPI communication) and USB. For wireless mice, another device that needs to be kept in sync between the first two is added to the mix: the wireless dongle/wireless receiver. I'm unable to measure all stages of the entire end-to-end signal chain individually, so testing polling-rate stability at the endpoint (the USB) has to suffice here.


First, I'm testing whether SPI, wireless, and USB communication are synchronized. Any of these being out of sync would be indicated by at least one 2 ms report, which would be the result of any desynchronization drift accumulated over time. I'm unable to detect any periodic off-period polls that would be indicative of a desynchronization drift.



Second, I'm testing the general polling rate stability of the individual polling rates in wireless mode. Running the Katar Elite Wireless at a lower polling rate can have the benefit of extending battery life. All polling rates look and perform fine, and polling stability is unaffected by any RGB lighting effect.

Paint Test

This test is used to indicate any potential issues with angle snapping (non-native straightening of linear motion) and jitter, along with any sensor lens rattle. As you can see, no issues with angle snapping can be observed. No jitter is visible at 1600 CPI. 9000 CPI is the first step with smoothing and shows minimal jitter. Jitter continues to be mostly under control at both 16,000 and 26,000 CPI, where the second level of smoothing is applied. Lastly, there is no sensor lens movement.

Lift-off Distance

The Katar Elite Wireless offers three pre-defined LOD levels to choose from. Using the "Low" setting, the sensor does not track at a height of 1 DVD (<1.2 mm). Using either the "medium" or "high" setting, the sensor does track at a height of 1 DVD, but not at a height of 2 DVDs (1.2<x<2.4 mm; x=LOD height). Furthermore, one can perform a surface calibration, which may lower LOD beyond the lowest level. Keep in mind that LOD may vary slightly depending on the mousing surface (pad) it is being used on.

Click Latency

In most computer mice, debouncing is required to avoid double clicks, slam-clicks, or other unintended effects of switch bouncing. Debouncing typically adds a delay, which, along with any potential processing delay, shall be referred to as click latency. In order to measure click latency, the mouse has been interfaced with an NVIDIA LDAT (Latency Display Analysis Tool). Many thanks go to NVIDIA for providing an LDAT device. More specifically, the LDAT measures the time between the electrical activation of the left main button and the OS receiving the button-down message. Unless noted otherwise, the values presented in the graph refer to the lowest click latency possible on the mouse in question. If a comparison mouse is capable of both wired and wireless operation, only the result for wireless (2.4 GHz) operation will be listed.

In wired mode and with BRO (Button Response Optimization) enabled, click latency has been measured to be 8.2 ms, with standard deviation being 0.39 ms. In wired mode and with BRO disabled, click latency has been measured to be 0.7 ms, with standard deviation being 0.36 ms. In wireless mode and with BRO enabled, click latency has been measured to be 9.2 ms, with standard deviation being 0.58 ms. Finally, in wireless mode and with BRO disabled, click latency has been measured to be 1.4 ms, with standard deviation being 0.50 ms. Furthermore, I've found Reflex reporting to potentially be inaccurate, with values being either significantly lower or lower than they're supposed to be.

The main button switches were measured to be running at 1.896 V. I'm not aware of the voltage specifications of the Omron D2FC-F-K (60 M) (China) switches, but find this voltage to be rather low.