Nope; 2.0 supports microframe polling as per Hi-Speed USB standard. But as of now this is exclusively for 3.0 controllers in Windows 8/10 because SweetLow figured something out in the drivers that come with that.
By the way, guys. Don't forget than 500Hz is the best of the best in terms of stability. So before making 2000 (or even 1000Hz) a standard we need to get rid of all this tracking issues, they're causing.
Was just about to ask if they've tried this very mouse =)
Can you elaborate on the issues you mentioned? I couldn't find button latency measurements for it and ppl say contradictory things about tracking on multicolored surfaces.
Cool. Though it's only a difference of 0.5 ms. And microstutters occur regardless of polling rate. Looks like a 3rd factor could be the culprit. Refresh rate improvements would be much more remarkable.
>1000 Hz monitors pls
Yeah. It's better than all this blur reductions and j-syncs.
But wait.. more Hz not always better: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_predator_z35.htm
It can into 200Hz but there are no advantage between 120 and 200 on this monitor because of poor response time.
So we need 1000Hz with extra fast response time.
CPU usage of 1000hz is pretty high even on a top end i7 @ 4.4ghz, I can't imagine 2000hz being a good thing (although the high CPU usage is no issue with old games like Quake I'll give you that).
Well if I look at process explorer/process hacker and move my mouse all over the place I can see the "interrupts" CPU usage rising quite a bit. In a recent, demanding game you can get some fps drops when turning that you don't get at 125hz.