The monitor has to be FAST, not necessarily ultra high resolution (I wouldn't be looking at LCD technology for that). Only monitors with a 1-3ms response time are good enough for gaming, and even then, that's borderline good compared to CRT's. The fast LCD monitors still have noticeable blur when moving images are displayed, despite what any 'calculations' of effective refresh rates might indicate.
You do realize that 1ms is 1/1000th of a second?
You do realize that 1-3ms is actually faster than the time it takes a bee's wing to make a complete cycle? They can move at 5ms. Can you see those wings as still images? I don't think so. A typical camera flash is 1-2ms. Can you actually see the blub glowing before it flashes and releases the energy? Comeon. The human eye cannot tell the difference in response times that quickly! Setting shutter 1/125th is a response time of 8ms. These times are to give you an idea of how fast you're claiming makes a huge difference.
Now, this would be completely different if we're talking about 16-24ms. Then you'll start getting some ghosting effects in FPS games, depending on the POV. Anything higher then it's just nasty. I've got a Samsung 930b 19" LCD that has a response times of 8ms. I have no ghosting at all on my games. The fact they say 8ms, is actually the response time of a full cycle from black -> white -> black. So technically, it's only 4ms from black -> white.
The Razer Copperhead mouse is a marvel for gaming. Just plugging the mouse in and playing doesn't give you more accuracy (contrary to the beliefs of most reviewers) - you have to change settings to get the higher accuracy out. Turn the in-game software mouse sensitivity down (reduces the size of step motion), and the Razer mouse sensitivity up (on-the-fly and in-game with the drivers - increases the number of steps per hand motion), and you effectively increase the resolution of the mouse in game. That is, when you move the cursor, you can see that the pixel step motion is much finer, thus increasing your accuracy. Mouse 'reviewers' and everyone else I've listened to don't seem to have noticed this. Even Toms' way of testing whether a mouse is more accurate is to say, "oh, we tried to aim and shoot, and it 'felt' better, therefore it DEFINATELY is more accurate". And then they apologise for missing a major and obvious bug with a mouse e.g. the famous Logitech MX1000 delay issue. Noone can review mice properly from what I've seen. The copperhead is the best gaming mouse available; every feature has a measurable effect e.g. 1000Hz USB bus speed increase - no review has said explicitly what effects that has in game.
I just didn't like the fit. It didn't fit my hand right and felt very uncomfortable. Now the logitech G7 I love. It fits my hand just right. As far as 1kHz increase in the bus speed of a USB device, I find that very hard to believe. The bandwidth assoicated with USB 2.0 is around 60MB/sec, or euqal to 60Mhz. So visibly we're talking 60,000,000. Now you say that there's a 1kHz increase on this bandwidth which would make it 60.001MB/sec or 60,001,000 Hz That's a very, very, very, small marginal increase. Roughly ~0.002% increase.
Something doesn't sound right. Where'd you get that information that it increases the bandwidth 1kHz? I've studied frequencies in my IT/Network major and am an avid amature radio operator. As far as I know certain mediums have a fixed maximum bandwidth and cannot be increased...
I'm positive the USB Serial Interface is like this.
The Logitech gaming keyboard is simply a feature-rich marvel, and oozes quality.
Yes, I agree and I absolutely LOVE my Logitech keyboard. My cousin HATES his Microsoft keybord - big surprise there.
Right, a few things need to be cleared up here. firstly, i have all this technology and so i can measure it. secondly, as ive stated, theres a difference between the stated numbers, and what they actually mean in practice. As with most things, theres far more to it than what is stated on the tin. As I stated in a previous post, the monitor may very well say 2ms response time etc, and calculate to have an effective higher refresh rate than the most spectacular CRT monitor, but the reality is very different. Again, I cannot show you here what happens with LCD technology, but its vey clear to my eye how it deviates from teh perfection of CRT's. Because reviewers dont actually go into this stuff, noone is any the wiser until theyve made the purchase. As far as gaming is concerned, i can state from measurement that LCD = poor (relatively), CRT = 'perfect'.
RE the mouse: bandwidth is irrelevant. Again, instead of describing in lengthly detail what 1000HZ does in game, you would just have to see it. It makes a subtle, but measureable difference. Measurements are things people dont seem to do - they provide the evidence and thus proof of what the technology DOES rather than what it is claimed to be able to do theoretically from the numbers.
Shame i dont have a high speed video camera, then you could SEE what im talking about. tip: ignore marketing spiel, take plenty of measurements. of course the latter is hard to do if you dont have the technology. which is perhaps where these forums come in.
. please don't take my sarcasm literally.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram