2000 Hz: A Closer Look

In general terms, polling rate can be described as the rate at which the data generated by the mouse is transmitted from the mouse to the PC via USB. Polling rate is measured in Hz; i.e., the number of times per second. The higher the polling rate and consequently lower polling interval—the more frequently the cursor position and any other input events (button presses) updates, resulting in improved positional accuracy and generally reduced latency. At 1000 Hz, the polling interval is 1 ms, meaning the PC receives a new update every 1 ms, whereas at 2000 Hz, the interval is 0.5 ms.

2000 Hz: The Technology and How to Use It

Wired mice natively capable of polling rates in excess of 1000 Hz first found some adoption in 2021. For wireless mice, the only mice at least claimed to be capable of wireless 2000 Hz polling were the Corsair Sabre RGB Pro Wireless and Katar Elite Wireless, both of which were full-speed devices that utilized duplicated packets to fake readings. The M3S Varun, on the other hand, is a high-speed device with the included dongle and thus natively capable of polling rates above 1000 Hz.

Within the software, polling rates of 125, 500, 1000, or 2000 Hz are available. However, it is important to note that those values merely denote the maximum applicable polling rate. If the mouse isn't physically moved enough to generate a sufficient number of motion events (for 2000 Hz at least 2000 pixels worth of motion per second), fewer updates will be transmitted, resulting in a lower effective polling rate. Accordingly, it is strongly recommended to use a sufficiently high CPI step in conjunction with the M3S Varun. I would advise using at least 1600 CPI, and possibly even higher steps depending on one's effective in-game sensitivity (turn circumference). The higher the turn circumference, the more physical motion is typically generated, and thus lower CPI is required to saturate the polling rate. Conversely, the lower the turn circumference, the less physical motion is generated, and thus higher CPI is required to saturate the polling rate. On the M3S Varun, there is no smoothing across the entire CPI range, so any value can be used without a latency penalty.

In order to get the full benefit out of 2000 Hz polling, certain conditions need to be met. First, it is recommended to have a sufficiently powerful CPU; i.e., one with six physical cores and appropriately high IPC at the least. Second, the OS has to be capable of interrupt moderation of 250 μs or lower. This is true of Windows 8 or higher, where interrupt moderation on XHCI will typically be 50 μs, but not of Windows 7 and lower, where interrupt moderation is never below 1 ms unless changed manually, which isn't easily done. On EHCI, interrupt moderation can be expected to be 125 μs on Windows 8 or higher, which is sufficient but not optimal. Third, it is therefore recommended to plug the M3S Varun into a USB 3.x port in XHCI mode. Any USB 3.x ports forced into EHCI will behave similarly to a native USB 2.0 port. As a general rule of thumb, one should be using a USB port native to the CPU and not connect any other high-polling devices to a port of the same hub. Even if all of these conditions are met, actual polling stability during higher workloads will further depend on general system and OS health. As such, it is recommended to use a reasonably optimized OS installation without bloat in conjunction with the M3S Varun.

Performance Testing

In this section, I'll be testing general tracking, polling stability, and motion delay for 2000 Hz. All testing has been performed at 3200 CPI. Please note that the G403 is moved first and thus receives a slight head start.

2000 Hz:


Regardless of whether MotionSync is disabled (first row, first plot) or enabled (first row, second plot), no oddities show up. The odd outlier aside, the M3S Varun averages 0.5 ms. Independently of MotionSync, motion delay can vary drastically. For the most part, it will hover around 2 ms (second row, first plot), but at times, it is closer to 1 ms (second row, second plot). I'm unable to detect any pattern or cause resulting in this inconsistency.

Interestingly, the same inconsistency and above average motion delay differential can be observed at 1000 Hz. The best theory I can come up with is that the so-called shift behavior explored on the previous page is particularly pronounced when using the USB high-speed dongle, resulting in increased latency right from the get-go. That said, even when excluding this effect from the consideration, the best the M3S Varun can muster in terms of motion delay at both 1000 and 2000 Hz is a differential of around 1 ms, which merely equals parity with the full-speed dongle at 1000 Hz.

Subjective Evaluation

Of course, the performance metrics obtained through empirical testing are just one side of the coin. The more pressing question is whether 2000 Hz is at all noticeable in games, and if so, to which degree.

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 2000 Hz polling with the M3S Varun, so the matter shifts towards whether said advantage is meaningful and thus noticeable one way or another. That said, playing on a 165 Hz monitor at typically 200 FPS or more, I indeed struggled to notice a difference in terms of latency compared to 1000 Hz. As explained above, saturating the full 2000 Hz polling rate takes quite a bit of mouse movement, and thus isn't typically reached all the time anyway, so most of the time, the benefit in terms of latency compared to 1000 Hz is around 0.5 ms, which is well below the sensory capabilities of the average human. The greatest effect of 2000 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 in regards to click timing. Particularly games supporting sub-frame input will benefit to a greater degree from 2000 Hz, such as Overwatch or Diabotical with their respective settings enabled. Generally, in order to get any use out of 2000 Hz, I'd recommend using a strong CPU and a 240 Hz or even 360 Hz display. Slower panels will inevitably struggle to even display the granularity afforded by 2000 Hz polling. Those with weaker CPUs may experience worse input response simply due to the higher CPU cost, which means any advantage gained by 2000 Hz immediately cancels itself out.

Appendix: List of Tested Games

As there is little reason to use 2000 Hz in non-competitive games, I'll exclusively list games that are typically considered competitive. Please note that a game running fine for me won't necessarily run fine for everyone, as it merely means it generally works well with 2000 Hz polling. Conversely, a game not working well at 2000 Hz on a specific system isn't generally incompatible with 2000 Hz polling.

• Call of Duty: Black Ops II Up to 2000 Hz
• Diabotical Up to 2000 Hz
• KovaaK's Up to 2000 Hz
• Quake Champions Up to 2000 Hz
• Quake Live Up to 2000 Hz