eltouristo

For some of us, side buttons interfere with best and non-distracting grip. It is a perfectly valid, needed, yet missing item in the industry. Makers are too concerned about leaving something off other devices have. But sometimes that's better. We need mice with 1000hz and best sensors in variety of standard shapes (I prefer the classic Logitech mx300 shape) with only the 2 main button and scroll, (as older thread has said). Just because more buttons can be put on mice does not mean that provides some essential thing that is necessarily better for 'gaming', especially where your grip etc matters the most. The thumb forms half the grip, without the thumb you have no grip at all, you literally could not operate a mouse. The buttons interfere in fine quick movements especially 'up' and 'down' movements and also in picking up and putting down the mouse while maintaining best uninterrupted control. Being under 80 grams with ability to be 60 grams is important to many of us too. A glossy finish on the sides can give a better grip for many of us than matte, not worse. Subjectivism is humanty's biggest problem by far.

I just want to say OP is justified in his request. There may have been others that said that, but I saw at least one person say if it doesn't have side buttons it's not a gaming mouse. That is ridiculous. Side buttons interfere with best and non-distracting grip for people like me and the OP. It is a perfectly valid, needed, yet missing item the industry. Makers are too concerned about leaving something off others have. But sometimes that's better. We need mice in variety of standard shapes (I prefer the classic Logitech mx300 shape) with only the 2 main button and scroll, as the OP said. Just because more buttons can be put on mice does not mean that provides some essential thing that is necessarily better for 'gaming', especially where your grip etc matters the most. The buttons interfere in fine quick movements especially 'up' and 'down' movements and also in picking up and putting down the mouse while maintaining best uninterrupted control. Subjectivism is humanty's biggest problem by far.

My sincere apologies if they are now truly comparable!* If what you say is an accurate representation, it should be more widely published and known. It doesn't seem so long ago that I repeated such reading. Because if freesync is 'every bit as good' then there should be a much greater stink about the cost of g-sync. The point of the 'version' of freesync may still be relevant, as in, you may be describing 'ideals' that are not yet commonly available, I don't know. Improvements could have 'sneaked up 'on me, lol. I think maybe still, if you search 'freesync vs gsync' you will get an impression similar to mine. I'm still somewhat skeptical, and I think you may still be downplaying some difference a bit, but I'm not sure about that, and will have to dig for verification of what you have reported and implied. Thanks ! * EDIT: My basic message is still relevant. It seems yours is still too forgiving of freesync. Here is a quote from an article dated June 2018 " Given the price gap, you might wonder why anyone would prefer G-Sync. The answer is simple — it’s superior. Nvidia’s adaptive refresh technology just delivers more consistent overall performance. " https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/nvidia-g-sync-or-amd-freesync-pick-a-side-and-stick-with-it/

Don't publish misinformation. They are not the same. Everyone has to do there own reading from good sources. For starters, I think G-sync will do lower framerates than freesync, lower framerates being the scenario needing sync the most ! There are other difference more slight. But G-sync is superior enough to make it the 'easy' choice if you want these sorts of sync tech. In other words, wanting that feature, but getting freesync, defeats a large part of the reason for getting that sort of sync!

I think things are a little different from prior comment. USB is not the best generally. Yes drivers are what matters most but in practice we find USB is not the best implementation. I follow and study audio interface latency...by reading the work of a few people. There is one guy doing really cool testing research and he has a big thread somewhere with charts etc..it seems legit and I am careful about calling something legit. https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/618474-audio-interface-low-latency-performance-data-base.html Long thread, bulk of charts is in the middle somewhere. He also does Dawbench stuff that is related work and I follow that too. http://www.scanproaudio.info/tag/dawbench/ His work is really valuable will hopefully be disruptive to the soundcard makers industry..so they care more about drivers. It matters much more than you think, because surprisingly it turns out to not just be about perceived latency. Lower latency sound interfaces result in better resource performance from a given computer...meaning you literally get more DAW performance and plug in counts etc with lower latency. They are correlated. This is surprising, but if you want the most DAW performance from you computer, you want to lowest latency. So it literally is the case that the lower latency soundcard is in effect giving you a much faster computer ! Yes RME are the best but also quite expensive can be 2x the cost of your computer. ! USB in some ways may look to be comparable in 'speed', but it can never be a 'quick' as PCI. There is something important about thunderbolt because it is actually an 'external PCIe' connect. The Presonous Quantum has made a name for itself among those close to this issue. That is likely to be the one I will try. Yes many of us are quite pissed that TB implementation is so piss poor slow to come on desktop motherboards, while it can be found quite a bit more commonly on laptops (but laptops can still be a bit slower and always cost more and other limitations (and benefits). Yes we've been long aware that the ONLY current mainstream MB with TB built in the the ITX Asrock. And the TB being built in is the ONLY type you want. The add-in cards with wires that connect to headers on the MB are known CRAP!. I don't care how much luck etc you might here, all too often it is YMMV, instead of it actually works reliably and hassle-free. If you can even find a card, that must be the same brand as the MB, and the MB must be TB ready-with the header on it. I am so feed up I am considering caving and getting the ITX, though I really want mATX or ATX. and the TB on the Asock is only 20gbs ! (half speed) This may not matter for audio/midi though, idk, I will have to research that before doing this. Also the ITX only has 2 ram slots and only one m.2. I can live with only one PCI slot but the other two things are a gripe. However given it's the ONLY one, I may do it. Also you could build X299 (intel) but it costs way more, and it actually not quite a efficient etc as coffee lake (which is really good chip actually). It's not clear if Intel willl make refresh cpus for X299. The Gigabyte Designaire EX is a good choice for built in TB etc if you want to built X299. In a best case the 9900k would already exist and z390 MBs would actually have built in TB. Don't count on the later ! grrr. Though yes you can do even better if you go above 8 cores on X299.