500hz vs 100hz g900 latency.

[leelaa14]

Just curious, whilst I can't directly feel any latency in wireless mode on my g900. Would using 500hz over 1000hz reduce any latency that is there by reducing the amount of data needed to be sent?

[ARikozuM]

Not likely. The sensor keeps up very well on 1000Hz polling rate, so the 500Hz should be just as fast (technically half as fast, but it can only be felt by those with the speed force). 

 

Edit: This is assuming your CPU is modern as far as frequency and core count (read: not uni-core) and can handle the USB standard well enough. 

[orangecat]

1000Mhz is always better because the system receives an update from the mouse at a rate of 2x faster. more updates = lower latency. The amount of data being transmitted is hardly anything at all and wireless mice are designed to work the same regardless of polling rate.

[leelaa14]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Not likely. The sensor keeps up very well on 1000Hz polling rate, so the 500Hz should be just as fast (technically half as fast, but it can only be felt by those with the speed force). 

I know the sensor is good. But what abut actual wireless latency for mouse to receiver. And do you think polling rate will have much of an impact on battery life?

[leelaa14]

Thanks for the replies.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, leelaa14 said:

I know the sensor is good. But what abut actual wireless latency for mouse to receiver. And do you think polling rate will have much of an impact on battery life?

G900 uses 2.4GHz, right? It should be fine unless you're placing the receiver far away or have an 2.4GHz receiver blocking the mouse from the nano-stick. 

[leelaa14]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

G900 uses 2.4GHz, right? It should be fine unless you're placing the receiver far away or have an 2.4GHz receiver blocking the mouse from the nano-stick. 

Yeah it's right next to the receiver really. Thanks for the reply.