Sensor and Performance

The Glorious Model D Wireless is equipped with the BAMF, which is based on the PixArt PAW3370 sensor. According to specifications, the 3370 is capable of up to 19,000 CPI, as well as a maximum tracking speed of 400 IPS, which equals 10.16 m/s. Out of the box, four pre-defined CPI steps are available: 400, 800, 1600, and 3200.

All testing was done on the latest firmware. 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 positive, highly consistent, and rather low. A good result overall. In order to account for the measured deviation, adjusted steps of 400, 800, 1550, and 3150 CPI have been used for testing. Theoretically, the BAMF should support CPI adjustment in increments of 10 CPI up to the 10,000 CPI mark, but my testing strongly suggests that this functionality is not present, limiting CPI adjustment to increments of 50, as is standard for the 3370.

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 the lowest possible motion delay. In this case, the control subject is a G403, whose 3366 has no visible smoothing across the entire CPI range. Note that the G403 is moved first and thus receives a slight head start.

Wired testing

First, I'm looking at two xCounts plots—generated at 1600 and 19,000 CPI—to quickly gauge whether there is any smoothing, which would be indicated by any visible "kinks." As you can see, such kinks are plainly on display in the second plot, which confirms that there is smoothing. In order to determine the precise amount, we'll have to turn to xSum testing.


In order to determine motion delay, I'm looking at xSum plots generated at 1600, 6400, and 19,000 CPI. The line further to the left denotes the sensor with less motion delay. First of all, and unlike on the Model O Wireless at the time of testing, the added delay at the onset of motion is all but absent. Accordingly, I'm able to precisely determine the smoothing transition points. There is no motion delay differential at 1600 CPI. At and above 6500 CPI, the first level of smoothing is applied, resulting in a motion delay differential of roughly 1 ms. At and above 11,700 CPI, a motion delay differential of roughly 3 ms is present, which holds true all the way until 19,000 CPI.

Wireless testing

Not much changes when running the Model D Wireless in wireless mode, as SPI timing jitter and general tracking are virtually on the same level as when wired.


At 1600 CPI, I can measure a wireless delay of roughly 2 ms. Unlike in wired mode, some motion delay at the onset of motion is present, albeit to a negligible degree; i.e., there is only a difference of 1–1.5 ms between the minimum and maximum values. In further contrast to wired mode, smoothing is more pronounced, resulting in a total motion delay differential of 8 ms at 19,000 CPI.

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 4.5 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 Model D 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 nice and stable. 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 Model D 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, but every once in a while, polling will break on non-1000 Hz polling rates:


That said, it happens infrequently enough to where I don't consider it an issue.

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. 6400 CPI is the highest step without any smoothing and shows minor jitter, which is moderately lessened at 6500 CPI, where smoothing is first applied. 19,000 CPI has the second level of smoothing and shows major jitter. Lastly, there is no sensor lens movement.

Lift-off Distance

The Model D Wireless offers two pre-defined LOD levels to choose from. At the default "1 mm" setting, the sensor does not track at a height of 1 DVD (<1.2 mm). This does not change when choosing the "2 mm" setting. Using a more precise method, I have been able to determine that LOD adjustment indeed is not functional. Keep in mind that LOD may vary slightly depending on the mousing surface (pad) it is being used on.

Click Latency

Since mechanical switches are being used for the buttons in most computer mice, debouncing is required in order to avoid unintended double clicks. Debouncing typically adds a delay (along with any potential processing delay), which shall be referred to as click latency. As there is no way to measure said delay directly, it has to be done by comparing it to a control subject, which in this case is the Logitech G203. Using the 0 ms debounce time setting, click latency has been measured to be roughly +0.8 ms when compared to the SteelSeries Ikari, which is considered as the baseline with 0 ms, with standard deviation being 0.58 ms. Using the 2 ms debounce time setting, click latency has been measured to be roughly +1.9 ms, with standard deviation being 0.60 ms. Finally, when using the default 10 ms debounce time setting, click latency has been measured to be roughly +10.0 ms, with standard deviation being 0.62 ms. Please keep in mind that the measured value is not the absolute click latency. Comparison data comes from this thread as well as my own testing, using qsxcv's program.

The main button switches were measured to be running at 1.962 V. I'm not aware of the voltage specifications of the Kailh GM 8.0 (80 M) switches, but I find this voltage to be rather low.