Mouse
Products
In The Lab
Forums
Newsletters
Insider Access
Best
Gaming Mouse Wireless Gaming Wireless Ergonomic MMO Work MacBook Pro And Air Logitech Lightweight Cheap And Budget Gaming FPS Wired Trackball Razer Claw Grip Corsair SteelSeries
Tools
Compare 3D Compare NEW Results Table Tool Review List Review Index Graph Custom Ratings
Popular
Razer Viper V3 Pro Logitech MX Master 4 Logitech G PRO X SUPERLIGHT 2 Logitech MX Master 3S MCHOSE L7 Ultra Keychron M6 Scyrox V8 Hitscan Hyperlight Razer DeathAdder V4 Pro Logitech G305 LIGHTSPEED Endgame Gear OP1 8k v2 Logitech G502 X PLUS Endgame Gear OP1 8k Scyrox V6 Logitech G502 LIGHTSPEED Razer Basilisk V3 Razer DeathAdder V3 Pro Logitech G502 X Logitech M720 Triathlon Razer Viper Mini Signature Edition
378 Mice bought and tested
Supported by you via insider access, and when you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.
  1. Home
  2. Mouse
  3. Test Bench 1.5.1

Test Bench 1.5.1  
Changelog

 12
Updated 

See the previous 1.4 changelog.

Our 1.5.1 test bench update streamlines our testing methodology by removing less relevant or redundant elements. We've simplified several test groups, with Sensor Latency being the most notable, to improve clarity and consistency. We've also removed supporting video elements that either caused confusion or didn't add meaningful value.

What's Changed?

Test Group Changes
Sensor Latency

Removed CPI Setting graph

New measurements exclusively at 3200 CPI

Removed the video element
Click Latency Removed the video element
CPI Removed the video element
Cable

Removed the test group's score

Removed the video element
Portability

Removed the test group

Moved Receiver Storing test to the Wireless Versatility test group
Scroll Wheel Removed Scroll Wheel Steps and Thumb Wheel Steps tests

Why Are We Making These Changes?

Sensor Latency

Our initial sensor latency test was highly granular, evaluating behavior at multiple CPI settings. This made sense when sensor quality varied more significantly between products. Over time, however, we began to observe inconsistencies. As pointed out by the community, some mice with identical hardware and reportedly identical firmware produced different results at different CPI settings. These results occasionally contradicted expected behavior based on how these sensors are understood to function.

This raised a broader concern: our test results might suggest meaningful differences in performance or design where none actually exist. While measurable variation still occurs, we're no longer confident these differences reflect anything substantial about sensor implementation or tuning. In some cases, the test risked misleading users by assigning weight to minor fluctuations that aren't noticeable in real-world use or meaningful during gameplay.

As a first step to address this, we've simplified the test by standardizing on a single CPI setting (3200). We chose this value because it's high enough to saturate higher polling rates at our testing speed and avoids the smoothing or interpolation some mice may introduce at much higher CPI levels. Although many users play at 800 or 1600 CPI, we're confident that 3200 provides representative insight into overall sensor behavior.

BEFORE

This panel shows Sensor Latency results before the 1.5.1 changes. The box displays a score of 9.5 with measurements taken at 800 CPI. It includes a Mouse Sensor Delay S-curve graph comparing physical position to USB position over time, as well as a bar chart showing average delay versus CPI setting.
Old Sensor Latency results from our Razer Viper V3 Pro review.

AFTER

This panel shows Sensor Latency results after the 1.5.1 changes. The box displays a score of 9.7 with measurements taken at 3200 CPI. It includes one Mouse Sensor Delay S-curve graph comparing physical position to USB position over time.
New Sensor Latency results from our Razer Viper V3 Pro review

It's also worth clarifying that higher CPI doesn't reduce true sensor latency. While our testing has confirmed that using higher CPI settings can marginally improve the delay to first detectable movement, due to more granular position data, it doesn't make the sensor inherently faster or more responsive in any meaningful way for gameplay.

We're not entirely closed to revisiting our sensor latency testing in the future if we believe it could provide more useful information to the community, but we'll need to assess whether the investment of resources is justified. The current trend we've observed is that highlighting small differences in sensor performance isn't something we want to encourage. Virtually all modern gaming sensors perform extremely well at a casual or competitive level, and other key elements such as shape, build quality, and wireless versatility are examples of parameters that are worth focusing more time on considering when making a buying decision.

Minor Sensor Latency Scoring Changes

With our new testing methodology, the sensor latency score for most mice has either stayed the same or improved slightly. The table below demonstrates these changes.

Sensor latency performance is strong across nearly all modern gaming mice. While our test can still detect small differences, these differences are typically imperceptible in real-world use. A mouse that scores 8.7 and one that scores 9.7 may appear meaningfully different on paper, but in practice, that gap has no tangible impact on performance.

A data table comparing old Sensor Latency scores and new Sensor Latency 3200 scores for 20 gaming mice. Each row includes the product name, test methodology version (v1.5.1), and two numeric scores side by side. Most mice have identical scores in both columns, while a few differ by 0.1 or 0.2 points.
This table shows both a selection of old Sensor Latency scores and updated Sensor Latency scores tested at 3200 CPI. Many mice retain the same score, while others show only slight increases or decreases.

Removal of video elements for Click Latency, Sensor Latency, and CPI Test Groups

We previously included video elements for our Click Latency, Sensor Latency, and CPI tests to illustrate our process and improve transparency. These videos were intended to help users understand how we run tests and to solidify trust that they were performed correctly and consistently.

Side-by-side comparison of the old Click Latency test, which had a video, and the new testing method, where the video has been removed but we've retained the click latency plot graph with breakdowns for Wired, Receiver, and Bluetooth connections.
Before (left) and after (right) our 1.5.1 update.

Based on community feedback and how some users were interpreting the footage, we found that these videos were causing confusion. Many assumed we were measuring full end-to-end (E2E) latency, including system-level delay, and that the visuals were part of our measurement process.

That's not the case. We use a USB protocol analyzer for the Click Latency and Sensor Latency tests, which allows us to isolate device-level latency and exclude system delay. The CPI test doesn't use this tool, but its video was also prone to misinterpretation and didn't add meaningful value, so we've removed it as well, along with the others, to reduce confusion and streamline our review process.

For more information, please refer to our methodology articles for Click Latency, Sensor Latency, and CPI.

Removal of Scoring and video elements for The Cable Test Group

The rationale for removing the cable test video is different. While the video was originally meant to support our text and scoring and visually communicate cable flexibility, it didn't do a good enough job of conveying meaningful differences to justify the added time and complexity during testing. Many modern paracord-like cables now perform similarly in practice, and the visual demonstration often failed to add helpful information. Furthermore, given that many cables now perform very similarly, we've decided to remove the scores from this test group.

Side-by-side comparison of the old and new Cable test group. The left side shows the original format with a 9.0 score and a video element demonstrating cable performance. The right side is crossed out with a red X, indicating removal of both the Cable score and the video element with the 1.5.1 update.
Before (left) and After (right) our 1.5.1 update, demonstrating the removal of the score and the video element for the Cable test group

More importantly, the mouse market has increasingly shifted toward wireless models. For most mice, cables now serve primarily for charging, making their flexibility and handling characteristics less relevant for real-world use. We'll continue to comment on cable flexibility, weight, and overall quality in our reviews when they stand out, but we no longer see value in showing them on video or assigning a score.

Removal of THE Portability Test Group

This test group primarily measured box volume, which isn't particularly helpful alongside our existing measurements in the Dimensions test group. This test was scored, but the score was deprecated and no longer contributed to usage score calculations in the Verdict section. We've retained the Receiver Storing test and moved it to the Wireless Versatility section.

Side-by-side comparison of the old and new Portability test group format. The left side shows the original format with a 7.8 score, box volume measurement, and Receiver Storing field. The right side is crossed out with a red X, indicating removal of entire test group, while highlighting that the Receiver Storing field has been retained and moved.
Before (left) and after (right) our 1.5.1 update, showing the complete removal of the Portability test group. The Receiver Storing test has been retained and moved to the Wireless Versatility test group.

Removal of Scroll Wheel Steps and Thumb Wheel Steps from the Mouse Wheel Test Group

Scroll wheel design has standardized in the last several years, so virtually all scroll wheel encoders have 24 steps. It's no longer necessary to include this information.

Side-by-side comparison of the Mouse Wheel test group before and after the 1.5.1 changes. The left side shows the original format with details for Scroll Wheel Type, Scroll Wheel Steps, Scroll Wheel Tilt, Thumb Wheel Type, and Thumb Wheel Steps. The right side shows the updated version with Scroll Wheel Steps and Thumb Wheel Steps removed, indicated by red strikethroughs.
Before (left) and after (right) our 1.5.1 update, showing the removal of the Scroll Wheel Steps and Thumb Wheel Steps tests.

Let Us Know What You Think

Your feedback is instrumental in improving our testing. If you have comments, questions, or suggestions about this or any future updates, reach out to us below in the comments, on our Discord server, or email us at feedback@rtings.com.

154 Mice Updated

We have retested popular models. The test results for the following models have been converted to the new testing methodology. However, the text might be inconsistent with the new results.

We make money directly from you via Insider access (which gives you access to extra features) and when you buy a product after clicking a link to a retailer. Learn more about how we work.
We buy our own products, just like you, mostly from the United States. When a product is discontinued or no longer popular, we sell the review units locally. See what products we currently have for sale.
© 2025 9298-5266 Quebec Inc. All Rights Reserved.