Since the copperhead has 1000hz and the diamondback doesn't (125) is it that noticible? Is it a feature that is worth considering when im going to buy a new mouse? ESR mouse score said that there was no preformance booast when they OC'd the usb port. Does this mean that the copperheads response time is better than the diamondback even though the diamondback scored better?
I guess what im trying to say is that, if i switch from the copperhead to the diamondback, will i notice the "slower" response time, or will there barely be a difference. Well, i might not notice it, but will my proformace be affected as well?
You might notice the movement becomes a bit more choppy after moving down from 1000Hz to 125Hz but the response time will be unnoticable. You can also overclock the diamondback using a 3rd party program which is also in the ESReality site. I think the link is added at the end of the Mouse Score article. So if you want to keep it at normal speeds, there will be hardly any difference at all and if you really wanted to you could overclock the diamondback anyway.
"ESR MouseScore said that there was no performance boost when they oc'd the USB port. Does this mean that the Copperhead's response time is better than the Diamondback's even though the Diamondback scored better? "
No. If they said that "Copperhead has 1000Hz", all it means is that it runs at 1000Hz by default, without drivers installed. Normally all mice run at 125Hz when plugged to the USB port. And even though Diamondback has no performance boost in "perfect control" graph when overclocked, it doesnt mean that it wouldn't have lower (better) response time when doing so.
So the answer is no, if you get the DB and run it at 1000Hz, it will have the same response time as CH when it comes to the USB lag.
And by the way, using 1000Hz is useless. 500 is the sweet spot. Or if you are like me and don't like the exaggerated fluidness of 500Hz and like the sharpness of 125Hz, go for 250Hz.
#6 the polling rate needs to be consistent, or more preferably rock-solid. 500Hz is the highest setting that is consistent. 1000Hz has been inconsistent (constantly varying from 600 to 900) on every mouse that I've tested it. 1000Hz causes a lot more CPU load compared to 500. 500Hz is smooth enough anyway.
#7 you don't need the God to tell you that higher polling rate is better. Go figure and try it yourself.
no, if you didnt kno about any of this at all, do you think it would have made you better anyways? no it probably wouldnt have. all you can do is find whats right for you. stop looking for answers from other people who are obviously not you. _~>~
#7 there is a mouse testing (forgot name) that shows when the mx500 is oc'd to 1000 hz it is the best mouse, i oc'd my mx510 and its a noticable difference...
#17, ESR Mouse is emperical evidence, is it not? Plenty of mice perform much better in those tests at 500 hz then they do at 125 hz, and those tests did nothing but put numbers to what gamers have known for years. Higher refresh rates help monitors-- why wouldn't they help mice? Common sense, I think.
Use a 3.0 like I did at 125 hz until 2004, then put it on 500 hz, especially with lower sensitivities. Even if you can't notice the difference in response and smoothness between the two, you should be able to pick up the negative acceleration when you try to move the mouse quickly. If you can't, don't blame those of us who can.
1000hz worth it?
I guess what im trying to say is that, if i switch from the copperhead to the diamondback, will i notice the "slower" response time, or will there barely be a difference. Well, i might not notice it, but will my proformace be affected as well?
No. If they said that "Copperhead has 1000Hz", all it means is that it runs at 1000Hz by default, without drivers installed. Normally all mice run at 125Hz when plugged to the USB port. And even though Diamondback has no performance boost in "perfect control" graph when overclocked, it doesnt mean that it wouldn't have lower (better) response time when doing so.
So the answer is no, if you get the DB and run it at 1000Hz, it will have the same response time as CH when it comes to the USB lag.
And by the way, using 1000Hz is useless. 500 is the sweet spot. Or if you are like me and don't like the exaggerated fluidness of 500Hz and like the sharpness of 125Hz, go for 250Hz.
#7 you don't need the God to tell you that higher polling rate is better. Go figure and try it yourself.
Play game like quakeworld or warsow with an uncapped fps and you'll see the difference.
Just feels better~ Preference though.
I own a DA, mx518, diamondback, habu and mx1000
My gf got my diamondback because she liked the red lights.
I have spent alot of money on mice and I just dont care for most gaming mice. Its the ergonomics, so I just use the 6000 because it feels the best.
Use a 3.0 like I did at 125 hz until 2004, then put it on 500 hz, especially with lower sensitivities. Even if you can't notice the difference in response and smoothness between the two, you should be able to pick up the negative acceleration when you try to move the mouse quickly. If you can't, don't blame those of us who can.
1000 hz = 1 ms
That is literally the technical difference.
The Razer Deathadder was tested using USBRate by myself to get these results. Personally, I use 500 hz because my LCD monitor has 2ms delay.
BTW: Hz has nothing to do with response time.
Submit Comments
Registered Users Only
In order to post comments, you must be a registered member. If you have not registered, it's free and easy!