3 ms·
Looked up the mouse to see how fast it updates and read that it is wireless. Kind of disappointing and might explain some of the variance. Although if X11 is
by mixmastamyk 2y ago
Looked up the mouse to see how fast it updates and read that it is wireless. Kind of disappointing and might explain some of the variance. Although if X11 is consistently faster the test should still have some validity.
Would like to see a test with gnome and the wireless mouse removed from the equation.
- IshKebab 2y agoYeah testing this with a wireless mouse is dumb. The proper way is to use an Arduino or similar as a USB mouse, and connect a photodiode to it too. USB mice update at 1 kHz.
- viraptor 2y agoIt depends on the model. Wireless mice don't have to be slower than wired. But even then, for this test it's irrelevant. It's the same mouse in both scenarios, and we only care about the difference. Even if a wired mouse stripped X ms on both sides, the result would be the same.
- IshKebab 2y agoIt does matter because the latency of a wireless mouse isn't necessarily consistent, so it adds noise into an already very high noise set-up.
- viraptor 2y agoThat's only a problem if the noise of wireless is higher than the signal (measured delay difference). And we can see from the data it isn't. Unless you're claiming it can be consistently different by ~5ms between those two tests... but that's very unlikely. Like, "you should demonstrate it" unlikely.
- gsich 2y agoYou need a setup like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbu3ySrRNVc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbu3ySrRNVc