SamsungVizioUser2023

Apr 18, 2025 03:46 PM By  Gregory Vodden

Hey Synd1cate, Good catch — you were right. We looked into it and confirmed that we accidentally posted the 1000Hz results in last week’s retest. I’ve just swapped them out for the correct 8000Hz data and graphs. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for flagging it to us.

since i noticed a mistake, could you please fulfill my request and test wireless, 2000hz with motion sync, 800dpi, 2mm lod and wired in high speed mode, without motion sync, 800dpi, 2mm lod

Apr 10, 2025 02:56 AM By Synd1cate

22

so fun guys, if you look at the graph, it’s 1000Hz, and I understand the data was made at 1000Hz without high speed mode, did someone pay you or something?

Hey Synd1cate,

Good catch — you were right. We looked into it and confirmed that we accidentally posted the 1000Hz results in last week’s retest. I’ve just swapped them out for the correct 8000Hz data and graphs. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for flagging it to us.

Apr 17, 2025 01:33 PM By  James Alex Chérubin

Hi dremsdrifting I went ahead and tested 4000hz motion sync off and here’s the results: Delay To Start Of Movement: 12.5 ms Delay At Half Movement: 2.1 ms Delay To End Of Movement: 3.7 ms Thank you and if ever there’s something you’d like us to test don’t hesitate! 😄

thanks james for the answer i would like to ask more do we have something else faster then 4000 on beastxmax

Apr 14, 2025 10:41 PM By dremsdrifting

2

4000hz sensor latency test motions sync off ?

Hi dremsdrifting I went ahead and tested 4000hz motion sync off and here’s the results: Delay To Start Of Movement: 12.5 ms Delay At Half Movement: 2.1 ms Delay To End Of Movement: 3.7 ms Thank you and if ever there’s something you’d like us to test don’t hesitate! 😄

4000hz sensor latency test motions sync off ?

Apr 11, 2025 07:58 PM By asvdif

40

I think they suspects the test was conducted at 1000hz because the curve graph appears jagged rather than smooth, unlike the 8k ones. Edit: I think it also could be firmware issue making 8000hz performs like 1000hz?

no, I tested the pooling rate using mousetester, 8khz is good and stable, it’s their mistake, I don’t want to tie in conspiracy theories, but maybe it’s beneficial for someone to understate the results

Apr 11, 2025 06:51 PM By  Gregory Vodden

Hey folks, we’d like to offer a bit of clarity to clear up any confusion regarding the recent retest update: The updated sensor latency results we’ve added were tested at 8000Hz with Motion Sync disabled—the same setting used for our original results, which we’ve linked at the bottom of the Sensor Latency test box for transparency. We haven’t yet added new results at lower polling rates or with the 1000Hz nano receiver due to current time constraints, but we’re happy to prioritize those if there’s enough community interest. We’re now more confident that our initial results were incorrect, though we’re still not entirely sure which variables in our setup caused the inaccuracies. The issue became apparent as we began comparing mice that, given their use of the same sensor and likely similar (if not identical) firmware, should have been delivering nearly identical performance. We’ve developed a few working theories and are actively investigating. One possible factor may be inconsistent clamping pressure in our testing rig, though we haven’t confirmed this yet. For context, after retesting, the WLmouse Beast X Max now performs more closely in line with the WLmouse Strider—which is what we’d expect to see. Thanks for your patience while we continue to sort this out—and as always, feel free to reach out with any questions or suggestions on how we can better communicate these kinds of changes and findings.

I think they suspects the test was conducted at 1000hz because the curve graph appears jagged rather than smooth, unlike the 8k ones.

Edit: I think it also could be firmware issue making 8000hz performs like 1000hz?