[Alexander @ Oct 31st 2007 12:02PM]

I want to know if this whole 'DPI' thing is a myth, or are they really increasing the resolution of the optical-sensor.

Because, if not, then what is the difference between all these mice?

[JTM @ Oct 31st 2007 12:38PM]

My Logitech G5 goes up to 2000 dpi and it's largely uncontrollable at that rate. I find it's nice to be able to turn it down for precise movement but super high dpi just makes the motion hyper fast.

[Alexander @ Oct 31st 2007 12:39PM]

Right, I have the G7 as well so I can turn that up and down as well.

My question still stands: Are they increasing the actual number of pixels on the optical chip, or is it just making the mouse move faster?

[steve @ Oct 31st 2007 1:41PM]

What it is meant to do is make it easier for those twitchy types to be insanely accurate even at the insanely high dpi. Ratchet up a normal mouse to those same speeds, you find yourself jumping ten pixels at a time. With these, you only move a tiny bit. I think it's still worthless, since I can barely use 1600 effectively, but for someone who does this sort of thing professionally, I can almost see the benefit.

[Dobbs @ Oct 31st 2007 3:40PM]

I don't know about technically speaking, but the higher dpi mice track much faster and more precise. So, I'd guess it is not a myth

[Alexander @ Oct 31st 2007 2:17PM]

But that still doesn't answer my question. I know that is what it does, and it is very handy to have when your sniping. When small movements are needed.

My question is on the actual chip INSIDE the mouse. It is a little bitty camera. Are they changing the resolution on the camera, or are they just multiplying the on-screen movement versus the actual on-desk movement of the mouse.

I already kind of know the answer. If they were increasing the resolution of the camera, it wouldn't matter much in terms of on-screen movement. You can change your mouse-speed to whatever you want anyway. They are just taking the input from the mouse, and multiplying it by a factor before they send it to the OS.

To the OS, it appears that you've moved your mouse farther than you actually have--and the opposite is true when you scale it back.

[Jesse S @ Oct 31st 2007 2:19PM]

I can use 2000dpi fine. It just takes practice.

[RandallC @ Oct 31st 2007 2:27PM]

I work for a mouse-sensor company that is striving to break into the sensor market. As such, a portion of my job involves testing the competitors' sensors.

The sensors are indeed increasing in resolution. This is no myth. The latest Avago chips do 3200dpi and higher. The marketing spin gets applied elsewhere...for example, in report rates. There are some mice out on the market that claim very low report rates, but these are often achieved by "cheating"...either sending packets twice (report rate x2!) or splitting data up over multiple packets. The reporting frequency goes up but you need multiple data packets to get a complete frame. Soo...marketing mumbo jumbo.

What you and JTM said is also true though; at 3200dpi, you'd better have a very high resolution screen or your mouse is going to be very hard to control. At much higher then that resolution you begin to need micron-level resolution in your hand to use the mouse accurately, which is just silly.

[Alexander @ Oct 31st 2007 2:31PM]

Okay, thank you. I realize that you are unable to give us too much information for fear of breaking NDA's and such things. But thank you for clearing that up.