Click Latency
While click latency hasn't changed, the latest rendition of the graph is provided for reference.
In most computer mice, mechanical switches are being used for the main buttons, which require debouncing 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 outside of using a USB analyzer, it has to be done by comparing it to a control subject, which in this case is the ASUS ROG Chakram Core. The test setup involves wiring the NO pin of one of the main button switches of the test subject to one of the control subject, and
qsxcv's program is used to measure the relative delay between them. Doing so is only possible if the devices in question are plugged into the PC through a wired connection. The Zaunkoenig M2K has been posited as the baseline for being within 0.1 ms of the possible minimum click latency of a high-speed device and within 0.2 ms of a hypothetical absolute minimum. As such, the resulting values may be considered quasi-absolute.
Using the 0 or 1 ms setting, click latency has been measured to be roughly +2.9 ms, with standard deviation being 0.55 ms. Scaling is linear.
Conclusion
- The Pulsar Xlite Wireless V2 is available for $79.95.
- Great wireless performance
- Excellent sensor performance
- Very low click latency
- Very high button quality
- Good scroll wheel
- Good choice of components
- Lightweight
- Excellent mouse feet
- Flexible charging cable
- Grippy coating
- Full software customizability
- Basic RGB lighting
- Wireless extender included
- Minor instability on non-1000 Hz polling rates in wireless mode
The
Pulsar Xlite Wireless has been one of the most acclaimed releases of 2021. Accordingly, it comes as no surprise that the V2 can only improve on details. Sensor performance, battery life, and switch selection all are entirely unchanged. The most obvious change pertains to the sides, which now only have holes right at the front, where fingers typically don't touch. Everything else is solid now, which can be good or bad depending on one's taste. Personally, I never had an issue with the particular type of holes used on the Xlite series, but from a sanitary perspective, a solid surface no doubt is preferable. In addition to doing away with the holes, Pulsar also redesigned the battery construction. On the V1, the battery sat on a plastic assembly erected above the PCB. As a result, most of the weight was centered around the front and middle, with the rear being off-balance. On the V2, this has been rectified by extending the bottom plate towards the rear and placing the battery there, leading to a more even weight distribution. The most impressive part about these changes is that the weight isn't affected at all and the same as before at just 59 g.
Among the most notable, yet rarely discussed ramifications of the change to the bottom plate is the effect it has on the acoustics of the clicks. Where the V1 had an almost entirely open bottom plate, a large portion towards the rear is now covered. In general, the more open the bottom is, the more muted the feedback of the buttons will be, all other things being equal. Accordingly, the clicks on the V2 have a more mechanical and sharper feedback compared to the softer and more muted sound of the V1. Of course, there is no right or wrong here, as this is ultimately subjective and merely comes down to preference. The change to the scroll wheel is a similar matter. On the V1, the scroll wheel has never been recessed into the shell as much as on the Aerox 3 Wireless, for instance. Yet, for those who found the wheel to be too low regardless, the wheel has been raised by 1 mm on the V2. The wheel itself is unchanged as the additional height exclusively comes from the encoder.
As one would have expected, the changes to the V2 don't radically alter the Xlite Wireless. Rather, an already excellent mouse has been refined even further, getting rid of some things people took issue with. Accordingly, the Xlite Wireless V2 is the direct result of customer feedback, which is great to see. The only thing still in need of fixing is the polling stability at polling rates below 1000 Hz in wireless mode, but this is MCU-related and thus not fixable in firmware. While the price has increased to $79.95, I feel it is justified given the necessary changes to tooling, and the Xlite Wireless V2 continues to be in line with the competition from Glorious and others. In short, the Xlite Wireless V2 once again earns our Editor's Choice and Budget awards.