4000 Hz: A Closer Look

In general terms, polling rate can be described as the rate at which the data generated by the mouse is transmitted from the mouse to the PC via USB. Polling rate is measured in Hz; i.e., the number of times per second. The higher the polling rate and consequently lower polling interval—the more frequently the cursor position and any other input events (button presses) updates, resulting in improved positional accuracy and generally reduced latency. At 1000 Hz, the polling interval is 1 ms, meaning the PC receives a new update every 1 ms. At 2000 Hz, the interval is 0.5 ms, and at 4000 Hz, the interval is 0.250 ms.

4000 Hz: The Technology and How to Use It

Wired mice natively capable of polling rates in excess of 1000 Hz first found some adoption in 2021. For wireless mice, the only mice at least claimed to be capable of wireless 2000 Hz polling were the Corsair Sabre RGB Pro Wireless and Katar Elite Wireless, both of which were full-speed devices that utilized duplicated packets to fake readings. If used in conjunction with the 4K wireless dongle, the Dragonfly F1 Pro Max, on the other hand, is turned into a high-speed device and thus natively capable of polling rates above 1000 Hz.

Within the software, polling rates of 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, or 4000 Hz are available. However, it is important to note that those values merely denote the maximum applicable polling rate. If the mouse isn't physically moved enough to generate a sufficient number of motion events (for 4000 Hz at least 4000 pixels worth of motion per second), fewer updates will be transmitted, resulting in a lower effective polling rate. Accordingly, it is strongly recommended to use a sufficiently high CPI step in conjunction with the Dragonfly F1 Pro Max. I would advise using at least 1600 CPI, and possibly even higher steps depending on one's effective in-game sensitivity (turn circumference). The higher the turn circumference, the more physical motion is typically generated, and thus lower CPI is required to saturate the polling rate. Conversely, the lower the turn circumference, the less physical motion is generated, and thus higher CPI is required to saturate the polling rate. On the Dragonfly F1 Pro Max, the entire CPI range may be used without any motion delay penalty, as no smoothing is applied at any point.

In order to get the full benefit out of 4000 Hz polling, certain conditions need to be met. First, it is recommended to have a sufficiently powerful CPU; i.e., one with six physical cores and appropriately high IPC at the least. Second, the OS has to be capable of interrupt moderation of 250 μs or lower. This is true of Windows 8 or higher, where interrupt moderation on XHCI will typically be 50 μs, but not of Windows 7 and lower, where interrupt moderation is never below 1 ms unless changed manually, which isn't easily done. On EHCI, interrupt moderation can be expected to be 125 μs on Windows 8 or higher, which is sufficient but not optimal. Third, it is therefore recommended to plug the Dragonfly F1 Pro Max into a USB 3.x port in XHCI mode. Any USB 3.x ports forced into EHCI will behave similarly to a native USB 2.0 port. As a general rule of thumb, one should be using a USB port native to the CPU and not connect any other high-polling devices to a port of the same hub. Even if all of these conditions are met, actual polling stability during higher workloads will further depend on general system and OS health. As such, it is recommended to use a reasonably optimized OS installation without bloat in conjunction with the Dragonfly F1 Pro Max.

Performance Testing: Sensor (1000 Hz and below)

When using the Dragonfly F1 Pro Max in conjunction with the 4K wireless dongle, sensor run mode defaults to corded mode. Much like before, MotionSync can be disabled (first plot) or enabled (second plot).


Using the 4K wireless dongle lowers motion delay by roughly 0.75 ms at 1000 Hz, both without (first plot) and with MotionSync (second plot).



Polling stability is compromised when using the 4K wireless dongle. Periodic off-period polls show up throughout, and occasionally, severe instability can be observed:



I'm unable to reproduce the latter form of instability consistently.

Performance Testing: Sensor (2000 and 4000 Hz)

In this section, I'll be testing general tracking, polling stability, and motion delay for both 2000 and 4000 Hz. All testing has been performed at 3200 CPI. Please note that the G403 is moved first and thus receives a slight head start.

2000 Hz:


No oddities in regard to tracking regardless of whether MotionSync is disabled (first row) or enabled (second row). Without MotionSync, the Dragonfly F1 Pro Max is ahead of the G403 by roughly 0.6 ms, whereas with MotionSync, the differential is roughly 0.2 ms. The Dragonfly F1 Pro Max averages exactly 0.5 ms, but some off-period polls are visible, which may be related to dropped packets.

4000 Hz:


No oddities in regard to tracking regardless of whether MotionSync is disabled (first row) or enabled (second row). Without MotionSync, the Dragonfly F1 Pro Max is ahead of the G403 by roughly 0.9 ms, whereas with MotionSync, the differential is roughly 0.7 ms. The Dragonfly F1 Pro Max averages exactly 0.25 ms, but some off-period polls are visible, which may be related to dropped packets.

Performance Testing: Click Latency

The instability observed for sensor motion events at 1000 Hz and below persists for click events as well, resulting in above average standard deviation. As such, the values given for 1000 Hz are to be taken as approximations, as the variance between runs is larger than average.

At a polling rate of 1000 Hz and using a debounce time of 0 ms, click latency has been measured to be roughly 1.8 ms, with standard deviation being 0.35 ms. At a polling rate of 1000 Hz and using a debounce time of 1 ms, click latency has been measured to be roughly 3.0 ms, with standard deviation being 0.33 ms. At a polling rate of 2000 Hz and using a debounce time of 0 ms, click latency has been measured to be roughly 1.3 ms, with standard deviation being 0.17 ms. At a polling rate of 2000 Hz and using a debounce time of 1 ms, click latency has been measured to be roughly 2.3 ms, with standard deviation being 0.22 ms. At a polling rate of 4000 Hz and using a debounce time of 0 ms, click latency has been measured to be roughly 1.3 ms, with standard deviation being 0.19 ms. Lastly, at a polling rate of 4000 Hz and using a debounce time of 1 ms, click latency has been measured to be roughly 2.3 ms, with standard deviation being 0.27 ms.

Subjective Evaluation

Of course, the performance metrics obtained through empirical testing are just one side of the coin. The more pressing question is whether 4000 Hz is at all noticeable in games, and if so, to which degree.

To properly answer this question, note that someone being unable to notice something does not mean it isn't there objectively, or does not provide an objective advantage. The latter is most definitely true of 4000 Hz polling with the Dragonfly F1 Pro Max, so the matter shifts towards whether said advantage is meaningful and thus noticeable one way or another. That said, playing on a 165 Hz monitor at typically 200 FPS or more, I indeed struggled to notice a difference in terms of latency compared to 1000 Hz. As explained above, saturating the full 4000 Hz polling rate takes quite a bit of mouse movement, and thus isn't typically reached all the time anyway, so most of the time, the benefit in terms of latency compared to 1000 Hz is around 0.5 ms, which is well below the sensory capabilities of the average human. The greatest effect of 4000 Hz may indeed not be observed in terms of absolute latency, but rather general positional accuracy and smoother cursor feel, more specifically in games requiring high precision in regards to click timing. Particularly games supporting sub-frame input will benefit to a greater degree from 4000 Hz, such as Overwatch or Diabotical with their respective settings enabled. Generally, in order to get any use out of 4000 Hz, I'd recommend using a strong CPU and a 240 Hz or even 360 Hz display. Slower panels will inevitably struggle to even display the granularity afforded by 4000 Hz polling. Those with weaker CPUs may experience worse input response simply due to the higher CPU cost, which means any advantage gained by 4000 Hz immediately cancels itself out.

When choosing between 2000 and 4000 Hz, there is no preferential choice. Click latency is identical between the two, but 4000 Hz nets lower motion delay, albeit at double the battery drain.

Appendix: List of Tested Games

As there is little reason to use 2000 or 4000 Hz in non-competitive games, I'll exclusively list games that are typically considered competitive. Please note that a game running fine for me won't necessarily run fine for everyone, as it merely means it generally works well with 4000 Hz polling. Conversely, a game not working well at 4000 Hz on a specific system isn't generally incompatible with 4000 Hz polling.

• Call of Duty: Black Ops II Up to 4000 Hz
• Diabotical Up to 4000 Hz
• KovaaK's Up to 4000 Hz
• Quake Champions Up to 4000 Hz
• Quake Live Up to 4000 Hz