- This right here is a prototype
of the AtomPalm Hydrogen, the best gaming mouse on the market. Theoretically. Although the hardware is
actually fairly standard for a high-end gaming mouse, it has a Pixart PMW3360
sensor and OMRON switches, everything about it has been tuned to offer the lowest possible response time between you moving the mouse IRL and the cursor moving in-game. So is this the new
competitive edge for gamers, or have we passed the point of
human capabilities long ago? Well, one thing humans
definitely aren't capable of is fully appreciating my
ability to segue to our sponsor. With GlassWire, you can instantly see your current and past
network activity, detect malware, and block badly-behaving apps
on your PC or Android device. Use offer code LINUS to
get 25% off GlassWire at the link below. (upbeat electronic music) All right, in a perfect world, the movements that you make
in real life with the mouse would be 100% accurately
represented in the computer. But in practice, there
are a bunch of things that can lead to imperfect
mouse tracking, and ultimately, you missing that sick headshot
by a couple of pixels. So, what can you do to have
the best possible chances? First of all, disable
your mouse acceleration. Then, most games also have an
option for raw mouse input, so you should enable that too. While we're talking about
easy ways to up your game, disable Motion Blur. This won't affect your mouse,
just (beep) motion blur. Why does anybody use it? The next problem is sensor spin-out. This occurs when you move the mouse faster than the sensor is able to detect, and generally this results in
the mouse failing horribly, kinda like someone running on a treadmill that's going too fast. On office mice or cheap
generic gaming mice, this can be an issue, but basically every real
gaming mouse these days is capable of tracking anywhere from 30 to 50 Gs of acceleration. Is that a lot? Well, I was curious how that relates to what's humanly possible. So we found this fun article
by H. Nagasaki from 1989 called "Asymmetric velocity
and acceleration profiles of human arm movements,"
and in those tests, the maximum arm acceleration was 11.4 Gs, and referencing other
less-reputable-sounding studies, we haven't found anything above 20. So basically, there's no chance of you physically outrunning a
properly-tuned modern gaming mouse. What can introduce errors,
though, are sensor flaws. For instance, the PMW3310
has a problem where, if you lift the mouse
and then set it down, it can stop tracking
properly for a brief time, undoing all that work you put into lining up your sick flick shot. Fortunately, finding a sensor without those kinds of
game-breaking flaws these days is actually pretty easy. sensor.fyi has a list of sensors and mice that are considered flawless. So you can just cross-check with that before you purchase a new gaming mouse. Once you have a sensor that
isn't doing anything weird, make sure then that you have
the lightest possible mouse. A light mouse has two benefits. For light mice, ergonomics
kinda matter less, since picking it up so easy, and they also have less mass,
which means less inertia, so quick moves and
adjustments should be easier. Now, at 45 grams, the Hydrogen is not
actually the lightest mouse. That goes to the Zaunkoenig MK1, but the MK1 lacks a scroll
wheel or even side buttons. So the lightest properly-featured
mouse is the Hydrogen, bringing us nicely to the party piece of
the AtomPalm Hydrogen: the 8,000 Hertz polling rate. 8,000 Hertz polling rate. (crew member whoops) What? Okay, to really appreciate
why 8,000 Hertz kicks butt, let's start off a bit lower. In the AtomPalm software, you
can change the polling rate to, well, anything you'd like. So let's set it to 1. Right now, the mouse is
updating its position about once per second, and it's horrible. What's kinda funny about it, though, is that it's not that
it's totally unusable. It does still work, like,
it's still accurate. It's just not a ton of fun. Changing the polling rate
to something like 125 Hertz. Oh my god, this is gonna take me a second. There we go, that's not bad. And that makes sense, 125 Hertz
is kinda like the standard, so if you have an office mouse at work or something like that, chances
are that's its polling rate. And with a maximum delay
of just eight milliseconds between when you physically move the mouse and when the computer
gets that information, you can definitely tell when a mouse is polling at 125 Hertz versus 1 Hertz. But you can also tell the difference between 125 and something higher. So let's flip to, what, say 1,000? - [Crew Member] A thousand, yeah. - A thousand, all right. This is what I would expect from a high-performance gaming mouse, and it really does feel more responsive, everything from snapping around to targets to even just, you know, clicking folders and opening them and closing them. It's just more responsive. But the jump from 125 Hertz to 1,000 Hertz is a seven-millisecond difference, whereas going from 1,000 to 8,000 Hertz, even though we're going
eight times faster again, it's just a .75-millisecond difference. Is it possible to feel
such a small change? If people are saying this is better, I do have to wonder if it's
kind of a placebo effect. Kinda like how we had a bunch of people buy shirts on lttstore.com and tell us what better gamers they were. I mean, we're not saying
it doesn't work that way. You can try it for yourself, but... For the mouse, anyway, we need
some more concrete evidence, so let's do a little bit of math. With 1,000 Hertz polling
rate on your mouse, the maximum possible latency
between moving your hand and the computer receiving
a signal that it has moved is one millisecond, or 1,000 microseconds, with an average latency
of about 500 microseconds. With an 8,000 Hertz mouse, the maximum latency is
now just 125 microseconds, and the average is 62.5. Now, our contact at AtomPalm says that it's this average response
time that is so important, since with a thousand-Hertz
mouse you will get used to that average 500-microsecond delay, while over time, you will
actually get muscle memory for the 8,000 Hertz mouse
and move it quicker. Just how much more accuracy
can you expect from that? To find out, Alex was
locked in a dark room until he emerged with the
grand unified theory of leet, which I will present to you now. This allows you to input the parameters of your mouse movement and find out the maximum possible error due to the polling rate of your mouse. Since the most leet gamer move is, of course, the 360 no
scope, let's start there. After studying epic gamer moments, we found that the average 360 no scope happens in about .4 seconds, and by plugging that and
average mouse and game settings into the grand unified theory of leet, we found that the maximum error on paper with a 1,000 Hertz mouse
during a 360 no scope is 19.2 pixels, while the 8,000 Hertz mouse is just 2.4. Damn. With that said, most
people are not, no offense, 360 no scoping all the time, so for a more realistic movement of 20 centimeters over
a span of one second, we're looking at about
an error of 6.3 pixels, or 1.77 millimeters, which
looks a little something like... Oh yeah, that's... That's not a lot. But, at 8,000 Hertz, it's
less than half as much. Anyway, this potential for
error is not taking into account adjustments on the fly as
you're making your shot, 'cause no one closes their eyes and makes a one-second shot
on muscle memory alone. You see where your aim is going, and you correct your movement with the muscle memory for 1,000 Hertz. Now, people were insanely good at "Quake" with 125 Hertz mice, so theoretical inaccuracy
doesn't always translate to missing the shot in real life, which brings us then to
the biggest question: why the heck does any of this matter if best-case scenario
your display is running at 360 refreshes per second anyway? Well, we were curious too, so we're gonna set up our
most scientific of tests. Our test consists of
our mouse-testing robot moving our device at precisely
2,000 millimeters per minute, the Asus ROG PG259QN running at 360 Hertz, and our Chronos high-speed camera recording the movements at
1,000 frames per second. I should note here that high-speed cameras
need lots of light, and comparatively monitors
are not very bright, so the footage kind of looks like butt. But, surprisingly, our test results did manage to show a difference between 8,000 Hertz and 1,000 Hertz. What we're looking for here is a perfectly-spaced mouse
movement with no gaps. The gaps happen when the polling rate and the display mismatch, leading to the highest possible latency and micro-stuttering. What I'm surprised to see is that there is measurable
stuttering at 1,000 Hertz, and even 2,000 and 4,000, but at 8,000 it is
almost perfectly spaced. Being honest with you
guys, I did not expect to see any real world difference here, and only performed the test
because Blur Busters thought that 1,000 Hertz might show stuttering at refresh rates of 240 Hertz and higher. I really was not expecting the differences to be, ah yes, this clear. Now, it is possible to overclock a small number of gaming
mice to 8,000 Hertz, that don't have support
for it out of the box. But for most mice, the maximum
1,000 Hertz polling rate is hard coded into the
drivers, which means, unfortunately, that the
AtomPalm Hydrogen is, well, unfortunately for all the
other mouse makers, I suppose, legitimately the most
accurate mouse on the market. Although, being accurate is meaningless without also reducing click latency. Unfortunately, we don't
have a reliable way to test the debounce and
latency of a mouse yet. But AtomPalm wrote a research
paper about how they have the lowest theoretically
possible click latency by doing some fancy debounce
stuff in the microcontroller. If you feel like checking their
work, you can go read that, we're gonna have it linked down below. The final hurdle though, of course, for AtomPalm is reliability. As far as that goes,
well, only time will tell. We haven't even been able to test a final production unit yet, so we can't properly comment on that, or even the build quality, 'cause this one right here is 3D printed. But Razor has announced plans to release an 8,000 Hertz mouse if you need a little bit more reliability. So anyway, this is it,
the AtomPalm Hydrogen, theoretically the most
accurate gaming mouse. And although chances are that you are not cool or skilled enough to experience any of the benefits besides the placebo feel-good-ness of having the best, most legit mouse, man, then, you know, bummer. But hey, if you're an elite gamer, you should consider picking it up for just a little under $100. - [Crew Member] Would you buy it? - Oh, heavens no. People should just get the G305. It's light, the battery
lasts basically forever, and it's relatively cheap. But hey, you know what's not cheap? The hours of labor that
my writing staff puts into creating videos like this and segues to our sponsor like this. MSI's Vigor GK50 Elite Gaming Keyboard features Kailh mechanical switches, an ergonomic high-low keycap design to reduce strain and pain
for your hands and wrists, a brushed metal top plate
and octagonal-shaped keycaps, and it comes with bright,
perky RGB lighting with various effects. You can fine tune the detail settings with MSI's Dragon Center software, and you can check it out today at the link in the video description. If you guys enjoyed this
video, you might also enjoy... Oh, what was that slow-mo mouse nonsense? (crew chatter) No, no, not that one,
the one where we test wired versus wireless mice
with a high-speed camera. It was great. And you could also check "Does High FPS Make You a Better Gamer?" We'll link them both.
Remember when a certain brand tried to push 500hz over 1000hz? I do.
Not a review, but very informative of the theoretical benefits of 8000hz
I'm down for 8000hz but I wonder how much CPU resources does it take to run.
I haven't tried a 8000Hz yet, but my unconfirmed assumption is that it's going to be a lot like going from 240Hz to 360Hz. That is to say, noticeable but functionally irrelevant. I'd rather have 1440p 240hz than 1080p 360hz because I enjoy the higher pixel density despite the increased input latency, and I'd probably prefer 1000hz over 8000hz on wireless so I don't have to charge my mouse nearly as much. At such small marginal differences I let non-performance based things like convenience take precedence
i think its nice to have incremental polling rate adjustments in the software. i know certain games that max out my CPU already so it would be nice to have the option of say 4000 polling rate if i wanted a happy medium
seen that,man it is realy something .
next mouse evolution is here probably
So if you have a 360hz monitor there's a VERY SLIGHT benefit when it comes to micro stutters? Do we know if games will see any benefit from this or is this gonna end up being something you'd only be able to see on the desktop?
Either way, I'd say for most people you'll get a more tangible benefit from switching to wireless mice, and 8000hz doesn't work on wireless (yet).
Really sad how theirs going to be mice coming out stock 8k hz but my 330 m1k has no supported software for this
When I get 100% cpu usage in battlefield 5 32v32 server, cpu can’t process mouse movements at 1000hz so I literally can’t aim. This is with high priority setting of course. 500hz works fine. So yeah, lots of cpu power actually.