Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gaming mouse

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 28, 2012 5:14:46 AM

hi
i have a classic optical 1000 dpi mice, and i'm about to buy a new pc for gaming
my question is should i purchase a new "gaming mice" with high dpi??

is it really matter?

what"s exactly the difference I will feel in game beteween a high dpi and low dpi mice?

thanks alot for any help.

More about : gaming mouse

a b 4 Gaming
November 28, 2012 7:39:12 AM

high dpi matters little for the general user. high poll rate on the other hand is important. most people will use a mouse thats set to under 2400dpi even fps gamers. any more than that and its to sensitive to be accurate.
thats not to say you shouldn't buy a mouse with high dpi because you can always turn em down to what you need and the higher the dpi the sensor can go often the better the over all tracking at low dpi is.
high dpi reduces things like prediction. prediction is how a mouse draws a straight line. it predicts where your mouse sensor is going and draws a pixel on screen accordingly. to much of it and your mouse will try to draw a box when your try to draw a circle. to little of it and your lines will look like they just come off a seismometer after an earth quake.
the real bonus about high dpi is it gives you options.
you can get ultra high accuracy by setting high dpi and reducing the mouses speed this is good for using a mouse to draw freehand pictures like your using a brush.
or you can set the speed back to normal and have ultra high dpi for use with multiple screens..
i found the best balance is setting the mouse up to match the ratio of your screen this gives best overall accuracy for pixel placement without compromising speed or you can match the pixel pitch of your monitor 1 to 1 by setting your mouse to in my case 1920/1080 or as close as you can get it. this is the 1 thing that peeves me about most mice.

relatively there are only a few screen sizes but your given all this ability to swap this and that but almost no mouse on the market will match the standard screen sizes you have to either use a ratio or as close as possible...
seriously this is the 1 thing that is needed for an accurate fast mouse. if your screen is 1920/1080 you need a mouse that offers increments of 10 or 20 not 125, 100 or 200 step increments. some would think it should be single step but in reality 10 is the ideal minimum increment. with that you can adjust your mouses dpi to exactly what your screen size is. regardless if its 600/400 or 2560/1600.

setting your mouse to higher than your screen size is utterly pointless at normal mouse speed, if your a gamer and for pretty much every other activity because the loss of accuracy is so great the mouse becomes useless. you just cant make small or fast enough corrections accurately if you use under an inch hand movement.

other things to consider on high end mice is acceleration. most gaming mice have it, and it aid's player speed the faster you move the mouse the further the mouse will travel on screen while staying withing the designated mouse area on the desk. this has 2 impacts on gaming. 1 it reduces overall accuracy for most people.
some who know nothing other than acceleration can use it to almost the same level of accuracy as a none accelerated mouse. the second being negative acceleration where the mouse speed is impeded by the acceleration function as it is turned down but not off. a lot of razer mice suffer this as razer refuse to allow the user to turn it off (i do mean off and not just appear to be off). or do not calibrate there sensors properly so they dont end up with negative acceleration.
the lachesis, naga and mamaba all have this issue as do many others in there ranges.
but to be honest this is all bells and whistles for the most part. if you cant get on with a mouse it wont matter how high the dpi goes. so its essential you test it for fit to your hand...

m
0
l
November 28, 2012 9:12:24 AM

HEXiT said:
high dpi matters little for the general user. high poll rate on the other hand is important. most people will use a mouse thats set to under 2400dpi even fps gamers. any more than that and its to sensitive to be accurate.
thats not to say you shouldn't buy a mouse with high dpi because you can always turn em down to what you need and the higher the dpi the sensor can go often the better the over all tracking at low dpi is.
high dpi reduces things like prediction. prediction is how a mouse draws a straight line. it predicts where your mouse sensor is going and draws a pixel on screen accordingly. to much of it and your mouse will try to draw a box when your try to draw a circle. to little of it and your lines will look like they just come off a seismometer after an earth quake.
the real bonus about high dpi is it gives you options.
you can get ultra high accuracy by setting high dpi and reducing the mouses speed this is good for using a mouse to draw freehand pictures like your using a brush.
or you can set the speed back to normal and have ultra high dpi for use with multiple screens..
i found the best balance is setting the mouse up to match the ratio of your screen this gives best overall accuracy for pixel placement without compromising speed or you can match the pixel pitch of your monitor 1 to 1 by setting your mouse to in my case 1920/1080 or as close as you can get it. this is the 1 thing that peeves me about most mice.

relatively there are only a few screen sizes but your given all this ability to swap this and that but almost no mouse on the market will match the standard screen sizes you have to either use a ratio or as close as possible...
seriously this is the 1 thing that is needed for an accurate fast mouse. if your screen is 1920/1080 you need a mouse that offers increments of 10 or 20 not 125, 100 or 200 step increments. some would think it should be single step but in reality 10 is the ideal minimum increment. with that you can adjust your mouses dpi to exactly what your screen size is. regardless if its 600/400 or 2560/1600.

setting your mouse to higher than your screen size is utterly pointless at normal mouse speed, if your a gamer and for pretty much every other activity because the loss of accuracy is so great the mouse becomes useless. you just cant make small or fast enough corrections accurately if you use under an inch hand movement.

other things to consider on high end mice is acceleration. most gaming mice have it, and it aid's player speed the faster you move the mouse the further the mouse will travel on screen while staying withing the designated mouse area on the desk. this has 2 impacts on gaming. 1 it reduces overall accuracy for most people.
some who know nothing other than acceleration can use it to almost the same level of accuracy as a none accelerated mouse. the second being negative acceleration where the mouse speed is impeded by the acceleration function as it is turned down but not off. a lot of razer mice suffer this as razer refuse to allow the user to turn it off (i do mean off and not just appear to be off). or do not calibrate there sensors properly so they dont end up with negative acceleration.
the lachesis, naga and mamaba all have this issue as do many others in there ranges.
but to be honest this is all bells and whistles for the most part. if you cant get on with a mouse it wont matter how high the dpi goes. so its essential you test it for fit to your hand...


thx a lot
i get it now
m
0
l
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
November 28, 2012 10:39:42 AM

Yeah I use a gaming mouse (4000dpi Microsoft Sidewinder X8) and it's honestly not a bit better than the Intellimouse Explorer I used to use before that. The Sidewinder is fine and is still working after several years of heavy use, but it's no better than what it replaced. Most important thing is design/comfort and obviously you'll want thumb buttons for reloading etc ;-)
m
0
l
November 28, 2012 1:54:50 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Yeah I use a gaming mouse (4000dpi Microsoft Sidewinder X8) and it's honestly not a bit better than the Intellimouse Explorer I used to use before that. The Sidewinder is fine and is still working after several years of heavy use, but it's no better than what it replaced. Most important thing is design/comfort and obviously you'll want thumb buttons for reloading etc ;-)


actually i HATE the thumb button, I always accidentally click on them lol

it's good to know that you feel this way
I'll hate to spend extra dollars for a "high end" mice.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 28, 2012 1:56:54 PM

supreme21 said:
actually i HATE the thumb button, I always accidentally click on them lol

it's good to know that you feel this way
I'll hate to spend extra dollars for a "high end" mice.


Haha my best friend says that and is still using a mice without them :-) It's really down to the mouse though - I've never clicked them accidentally on my own mice, but on some mice the thumb buttons are far too light, and I have accidentally clicked those. Gaming mice have thumb buttons as standard anyway so maybe another reason to not bother with them.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 28, 2012 2:13:16 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Yeah I use a gaming mouse (4000dpi Microsoft Sidewinder X8) and it's honestly not a bit better than the Intellimouse Explorer I used to use before that. The Sidewinder is fine and is still working after several years of heavy use, but it's no better than what it replaced. Most important thing is design/comfort and obviously you'll want thumb buttons for reloading etc ;-)


I personally loved the MS Sidewinder x8. The shape, button layout and charger was extremely good. However, I replaced it recently because it's poll rate was too slow and its tracking was a little choppy. It wasn't all that noticeable until I moved to a 120hz monitor.

Sadly, I it was very difficult to replace, but I'm using the G700, which has an awful charger and battery life, but it is much smoother and I've also grown to really like the 4 thumb buttons on the side as well (I tried the G600, but that was a disaster). I would have gone corded, but finding a mouse with a tilting middle button and thumb buttons I liked with a high polling rate limited me.

So anyways, I'd recommend the MS sidewinder x8 if you have a 60hz monitor or less, but if you want smoother, I'd look at the G400 or G700. I did not like the G400, due to the lack of a middle mouse button that tilts.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 28, 2012 2:21:54 PM

I really like the design of it too, and the G700 funnily enough is what I'd replace it with if I was shopping for another gaming mouse - looks really nice! Agreed about the charging cable too - it's an awesome feature (though the connection can be a little dodgy). I also have that same CPU and mobo.

I'd stand by my original post though about it being no better than my Intellimouse Explorer Platinum - I'm really not convinced by the DPI, polling rate being important. I think it's just a way of bleeding people more a bit more money.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 28, 2012 2:28:20 PM

sam_p_lay said:
I really like the design of it too, and the G700 funnily enough is what I'd replace it with if I was shopping for another gaming mouse - looks really nice! Agreed about the charging cable too - it's an awesome feature (though the connection can be a little dodgy). I also have that same CPU and mobo.

I'd stand by my original post though about it being no better than my Intellimouse Explorer Platinum - I'm really not convinced by the DPI, polling rate being important. I think it's just a way of bleeding people more a bit more money.


I didn't notice a problem with the polling rate until I switch to a 120hz monitor. When I drag a window across the screen, it doesn't look any smoother than it did with a 60hz monitor, but when I used a G400, the movement went from looking like the window was stuttering across the screen, to looking like you were hand moving a sheet of paper across the screen. Everything is much smoother now. In games I notice a big difference as well. Turning is just smoother.

What I guess I'm saying is that the sidewinder, and perhaps most mice have high enough polling rates for the typical monitor, but you'll definitely want a 1000/s poll rate with a 120hz monitor.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 28, 2012 2:33:29 PM

Plus it looks good on your desk ;-)

I thought the purpose of 120Hz is to have 60Hz per eye for 3D?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 28, 2012 2:39:12 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Plus it looks good on your desk ;-)

I thought the purpose of 120Hz is to have 60Hz per eye for 3D?


There are 3 purposes for me. 3D is one and I do like it for that as well, but 120hz gaming is also smoother than 60hz when not in 3D. The other benefit that I greatly appreciate is in 2D gaming at 120hz, if I keep my FPS over 80, I no longer get simulator sickness, which causes me to get nauseated, it is especially bad below 50 fps but improves as I go up.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 28, 2012 2:41:11 PM

That's an expensive condition to suffer from as a gamer. I get motion sickness from small boats and aircraft (large boats and aircraft are fine) but it's not as sensitive as your's from the sound of it. Explains your graphics muscle :-)
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 28, 2012 2:49:54 PM

sam_p_lay said:
That's an expensive condition to suffer from as a gamer. I get motion sickness from small boats and aircraft (large boats and aircraft are fine) but it's not as sensitive as your's from the sound of it. Explains your graphics muscle :-)

I actually am not that sensitive to motion sickness, at least not as far as boats and aircraft go. I used to sail in the ocean a lot and do ok (on small boats (21-36 footers)) and never experienced motion sickness on a plane. But what causes the similar feeling in games is not the same as what typically causes motion sickness. It is the latency between moving your hand and having it drawn on the screen that does it to me. This only affects me in first person or over the shoulder views where you control the view with the mouse.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 28, 2012 2:53:22 PM

My mistake :-) Would explain why shooters don't bother me.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 29, 2012 8:20:02 AM

sam_p_lay said:
That's an expensive condition to suffer from as a gamer. I get motion sickness from small boats and aircraft (large boats and aircraft are fine) but it's not as sensitive as your's from the sound of it. Explains your graphics muscle :-)


Honestly once you decide to go 120hz you had might as well just pick up the highest res CRT you can find (for non-3d purposes obviously).
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 29, 2012 9:18:55 AM

casualcolors said:
Honestly once you decide to go 120hz you had might as well just pick up the highest res CRT you can find (for non-3d purposes obviously).


Why's that? I remember CRTs generally topping out at 75Hz or 85Hz unless you dropped the res right down. Plus 4:3 aspect ratio... I loved my CRT for the colour quality/accuracy (which I know I'll never be able to match with TFTs) but I was losing half the screen when watching widescreen stuff. Can you even still buy CRTs? I stuck with it for a while but ended up being only big CRTs I could find were cheap and nasty stuff from Viewsonic etc, and that was several years ago.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 29, 2012 4:18:36 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Why's that? I remember CRTs generally topping out at 75Hz or 85Hz unless you dropped the res right down. Plus 4:3 aspect ratio... I loved my CRT for the colour quality/accuracy (which I know I'll never be able to match with TFTs) but I was losing half the screen when watching widescreen stuff. Can you even still buy CRTs? I stuck with it for a while but ended up being only big CRTs I could find were cheap and nasty stuff from Viewsonic etc, and that was several years ago.


You can still get them in some higher resolutions. If you want to go over 120hz you need to drop down to 1024x768, but i was actually mentioning CRT's because 75hz and 85hz will feel smoother than 60, but you avoid the input lag and ghosting issues that exist on all lcd's to varying extents. If gaming performance is really at the top of someone's list, input latency and ghosting are more relevant issues than 85 hz vs 120hz.

Like I said, except for 3d purposes.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 29, 2012 4:55:28 PM

Actually, when it comes to latency, 120hz improves latency more than a good response time. Though both are required. When a frame is rendered, on a 60hz screen, it may have to wait twice as long before it is sent to the screen, which can amount to an additional 8ms of time.

But what the other poster is saying is those old CRT's that got 120hz, got that with low resolutions, but now that resolutions are much higher, the VGA cables and DVI cables don't have the bandwidth for 120hz and I don't know if they had dual link-DVI-D with those. That means you'd need a new one, and they are more expensive than a good 120hz LCD.

Note: it's the latency between moving the mouse and the screen updating that gives me nausea.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 29, 2012 5:28:05 PM

bystander said:
Actually, when it comes to latency, 120hz improves latency more than a good response time. Though both are required. When a frame is rendered, on a 60hz screen, it may have to wait twice as long before it is sent to the screen, which can amount to an additional 8ms of time.

But what the other poster is saying is those old CRT's that got 120hz, got that with low resolutions, but now that resolutions are much higher, the VGA cables and DVI cables don't have the bandwidth for 120hz and I don't know if they had dual link-DVI-D with those. That means you'd need a new one, and they are more expensive than a good 120hz LCD.

Note: it's the latency between moving the mouse and the screen updating that gives me nausea.


On an LCD, screen size plays a bigger factor in display reaction than response time, and that 8ms (or 6ms 5ms 2ms) report time has nothing to do with input latency in the first place. Not trying to antagonize, but since you chose 8ms specifically I'll assume that you're pointing to response time which doesn't have much meaning outside of marketing man :/ 
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 29, 2012 5:31:52 PM

Well I'm using a PVA panel and it seems fine to me :-) Little bit of ghosting, but there's no way I was gonna tolerate the colour quality of a TN panel display after my old CRT, and I bought this when PVA and IPS panels were just beginning to appear in <27" displays, so had few options. IPS would be my preference, but only options at the time were extremely expensive.

Motion sickness is one thing, but people claiming that their gaming skills are being held back by hardware delays measured in milliseconds and Hertz is laughable. Brett's going around telling people that 'I tell my customers the ONLY thing that matters is 2ms response time' but personally, I care about the image actually looking good - not just in games but all the non-gaming stuff (films, TV, my photos). I'm thinking Dell U2412 for the next display if big AMOLEDs aren't affordable by that time.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 29, 2012 5:36:42 PM

Well Anandtech did some really informative testing into this - pre-charging of crystals in IPS panels where a high-contrast frame switch would cause ghosting. I think three frames were buffered in advance, a little but of input lag deemed a worthwhile tradeoff for combining colour quality/accuracy, reduced colour shift, deeper blacks etc with a non-ghosting output.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 29, 2012 5:38:04 PM

casualcolors said:
On an LCD, screen size plays a bigger factor in display reaction than response time, and that 8ms (or 6ms 5ms 2ms) report time has nothing to do with input latency in the first place. Not trying to antagonize, but since you chose 8ms specifically I'll assume that you're pointing to response time which doesn't have much meaning outside of marketing man :/ 


No, I did not choose 8ms due to response. I clearly stated that latency is more about the refresh rate.

A 60hz monitor refreshes its image every 16.67ms. A 120hz monitor refreshes its image every 8.33ms. That means that an image can sit in the frame buffer an additional 8.33ms before it is viewed. That adds to the latency between moving your mouse and viewing it on the screen. It is this latency that causes me nausea (similar to motion sickness). Of course low FPS in general increases that latency as well, because it takes longer to render the frame to begin with.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 29, 2012 5:40:21 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Motion sickness is one thing, but people claiming that their gaming skills are being held back by hardware delays measured in milliseconds and Hertz is laughable.


Oh I agree and by that same logic, esports trying to market 120hz monitors for purposes other than 3d display is similarly laughable to me at least. Hence why I still stand by the tried and true CRT, with its more than adequate refresh cycle and lowest input latency/best color representation. And for normal use? Just a normal 60hz flatscreen lcd :wahoo: 
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 29, 2012 5:43:26 PM

casualcolors said:
cheapestwowgoldvfc said:
Motion sickness is one thing, but people claiming that their gaming skills are being held back by hardware delays measured in milliseconds and Hertz is laughable.


Oh I agree and by that same logic, esports trying to market 120hz monitors for purposes other than 3d display is similarly laughable to me at least. Hence why I still stand by the tried and true CRT, with its more than adequate refresh cycle and lowest input latency/best color representation. And for normal use? Just a normal 60hz flatscreen lcd :wahoo: 


Well, nausea aside, games definitely feel more responsive with FPS above 80 on a 120hz monitor than on a 60hz monitor. Though, I did not notice that part as much when I first made the move, as when I go down now, but the biggest difference is nausea, which is induced by the latency. Clearly I notice a responsiveness boost.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 29, 2012 5:44:52 PM

Just a note, when I say I notice a resonsiveness boost, I'm not saying that I can more quickly target people, just that when turning, everything feels more fluid.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 29, 2012 5:47:57 PM

bystander said:
No, I did not choose 8ms due to response. I clearly stated that latency is more about the refresh rate.

A 60hz monitor refreshes its image every 16.67ms. A 120hz monitor refreshes its image every 8.33ms. That means that an image can sit in the frame buffer an additional 8.33ms before it is viewed. That adds to the latency between moving your mouse and viewing it on the screen. It is this latency that causes me nausea (similar to motion sickness). Of course low FPS in general increases that latency as well, because it takes longer to render the frame to begin with.


By the numbers, screen size has a significantly bigger impact on input latency than the refresh cycle, although the two are related. My point was not that refresh rate (and response time etc etc) play no roll at all, but rather they are not the most significant factors. It's just hard for a marketing department to put a positive spin on the fact that a 30" monitor's display and input latency is greater than the difference between 60 and 120hz, so they choose not to address it at all. Which again, is why outside of 3d displays, 120hz is only slightly more relevant than good old blast processing (I'll add the caveat here that I mean in relation to player performance, not things like eye sensitivity which vary person to person).
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 29, 2012 5:49:18 PM

bystander said:
Just a note, when I say I notice a resonsiveness boost, I'm not saying that I can more quickly target people, just that when turning, everything feels more fluid.


Oh I know what you mean. I have nausea issues with varying fps and fps lower than the display's refresh rate so I know that can be a significant way to measure your interaction with a display.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 29, 2012 8:28:03 PM

When I was little I played Doom on a 386 (not sure which model) that should not have been playing Doom... I must have been getting 10-15fps throughout but I kept playing. Maybe it trained my brain to tolerate crappy framerates without nausea :-) That said, I'll be holding off on Hitman, Assassin's Creed and Max Payne until I pick up a new graphics card next year.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 29, 2012 8:58:46 PM

sam_p_lay said:
When I was little I played Doom on a 386 (not sure which model) that should not have been playing Doom... I must have been getting 10-15fps throughout but I kept playing. Maybe it trained my brain to tolerate crappy framerates without nausea :-) That said, I'll be holding off on Hitman, Assassin's Creed and Max Payne until I pick up a new graphics card next year.


Nah, some people get it, some people don't. Those who do get simulator sickness, may be able to train themselves to tolerate it, but they will never git rid of nausea completely. Back before I had a good system, I didn't play a lot of 1st person games controlled by mouse, but when I did, I'd get sick and still play. I could get myself used to it after a while of playing, but I'd still have mild nausea.

The US Army found in a study, that close to half those using their simulators would get simulator sickness to some degree. It seems to be a genetic thing.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 29, 2012 10:58:49 PM

1 thing i dont get is sim sick. not air or sea, but put me in the back seat of a car and i will cover the driver in about 20 mins of setting off. same on a bus. if im not sitting on the back row above the engine i will hurl at the slightest provocation after about 20 mins.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 30, 2012 11:57:06 AM

Er... thanks for that Hexit :-)
m
0
l
!