Around the publication of our Logitech G PRO X2 SUPERSTRIKE review, there were ongoing community questions about which test methods were best suited to evaluating its new haptic inductive trigger technology. To investigate, we ran several experiments using human reaction benchmarks, high-speed camera testing, and our existing solenoid-based click latency rig. Our goal was to compare the strengths and limitations of each method and determine whether our current click latency methodology could properly assess this new technology, or whether it was missing an advantage specific to the SUPERSTRIKE.

This study was organized and conducted by my colleague Caleb, who will be around to answer questions about the testing.

TL;DR: Our testing doesn’t support Logitech’s “up to 30 ms faster” click-latency claim for the Logitech G PRO X2 SUPERSTRIKE. The SUPERSTRIKE performed well in our human reaction tests, but both those tests and our high-speed camera tests were too variable to reliably measure the small latency differences between modern high-end gaming mice. Our solenoid-based click latency rig produced consistent, repeatable results, and in that testing, the Endgame Gear OP1 8k v2 was slightly faster than the SUPERSTRIKE, consistent with our existing review results.

Review Gift Links

Below are gift links that unlock our full reviews for the four mice we used in this study:

Raw Datasets

For transparency, we've added google drive links for our raw datasets below

Summary of Findings

We conducted three separate investigations to evaluate click latency performance, with a focus on comparing human reaction testing against RTINGS.com's solenoid-based click latency rig:

Human reaction trials using two stimulus-based reaction tests across four mice
Modified click latency rig testing, replacing the solenoid with a human finger
High-speed camera analysis measuring the time from initial finger movement to on-screen response

Each investigation aimed to assess how real-world interaction compares to RTINGS' objective click latency measurements and to evaluate the reliability of our existing testing methodology through alternative approaches.

Mouse Settings

We set each mouse to the fastest click latency configuration used in our published product reviews.

Logitech G PRO X2 SUPERSTRIKE

Polling Rate: 8000 Hz Wireless
Rapid Trigger: Fast (1)
Haptics: Default 3
Actuation: Short click

Endgame Gear OP1 8k v2

Polling Rate: 8000 Hz
SPDT: GX Speed Mode
Slamclick Filter: Off

Logitech G PRO X SUPERLIGHT 2

LIGHTFORCE Switch: Optical Only
Polling Rate: 8000 Hz Wireless

Logitech G305 LIGHTSPEED

Polling Rate: 1000 Hz Wireless
Power Mode: HI (Performance)

Findings for Human Trials

This investigation compared human reaction tests against RTINGS' objective click latency measurements to determine how well human testing reflects our click latency rig's test results.

We used two stimulus-based reaction platforms:

Aimlabs Detection Test
Human Benchmark Reaction Test

We tested four gaming mice:

Logitech G PRO X2 SUPERSTRIKE
Endgame Gear OP1 8k v2
Logitech G PRO X SUPERLIGHT 2
Logitech G305 LIGHTSPEED

The Logitech G PRO X2 SUPERSTRIKE produced the fastest average reaction times overall across both platforms for most testers.

However, it wasn't the most consistent mouse, and it also produced the most misfires, likely due to its very sensitive actuation point.

Typical variability observed:

Run-to-run variability: approximately 11-15 ms
Tester-to-tester variability: approximately 14-24 ms

Objective speed difference according to our click latency rig between the Endgame Gear OP1 8k v2 and the SUPERSTRIKE:

Endgame Gear OP1 8k v2: 0.6 ms
SUPERSTRIKE: 0.9 ms
Difference: 0.3 ms

Human reaction testing detected large latency differences, like the slower performance of the G305. The second-slowest was the SUPERLIGHT 2. However, it couldn't reliably distinguish between modern gaming and esports mice whose latency differences are under 1 ms.

Findings for the "Finger Test"

After completing the human reaction trials, we performed an additional experiment using a human finger on the click latency rig instead of the solenoid.

The goal was to verify that the click latency rig results remain consistent even when pre-travel isn't eliminated by solenoid actuation. The theory was that the force and acceleration of the solenoid may reduce or even eliminate pre-travel.

Because the click latency rig typically captures inputs within a 0.5 ms detection window after actuation, many human-pressed samples were discarded when the press happened too early or too late relative to the rig’s timing. This narrow window helps reduce noise during solenoid-based testing, including noise caused by vibration or movement during the solenoid press. As a result, the human-finger runs produced fewer valid samples than our standard 250-sample solenoid runs.

After cleaning the data and removing outliers, we obtained the following results.

Endgame Gear OP1 8k v2

Run 1: 1.937 ms (163 samples)
Run 2: 1.840 ms (182 samples)
Run 3: 2.181 ms (183 samples)
Average: 1.986 ms
SD: 0.176 ms

Logitech G PRO X2 SUPERSTRIKE

Run 1: 2.052 ms (189 samples)
Run 2: 2.029 ms (200 samples)
Run 3: 2.372 ms (157 samples)
Average: 2.151 ms
SD: 0.192 ms

The Endgame Gear OP1 8k v2 was approximately 0.165 ms faster on average.

These results align with RTINGS' objective click latency measurements:

Endgame Gear OP1 8k v2: 0.6 ms
SUPERSTRIKE: 0.9 ms

The finger test results are slower than the solenoid-based click latency rig results because a human press is slower than solenoid actuation. The important comparison is the difference between the two mice under the same test conditions.

This consistency, with the Endgame Gear OP1 8k v2 measuring slightly faster than the SUPERSTRIKE, supports the reliability of the RTINGS click latency testing methodology, even when switching from solenoid actuation to a human press.

The finger test investigation supports the findings of the solenoid click latency rig, as both methods produce consistent results. This agreement represents a relative validation, confirming that the observed performance differences are reproducible across methodologies.

Findings for the Initial High-Speed Camera Test

We attempted to use a high-speed camera recording at 1000 frames per second to capture the interval between the initial finger movement and the on-screen response. The on-screen response was measured using a 540 Hz monitor displaying a white flash with the MS Paint fill tool.

After testing both the Logitech G PRO X2 SUPERSTRIKE and the Endgame Gear OP1 8k v2, we made the following observations:

Accurately determining the start of finger movement proved highly subjective.
Across testers, the selected starting frame varied by up to approximately 30 frames, or approximately 30 ms.

Measured results:

SUPERSTRIKE, Click 1: 89 frames (89 ms)
SUPERSTRIKE, Click 2: 86 frames (86 ms)
Endgame Gear OP1 8k v2: 79 frames (79 ms)

Given the potential variation of approximately 30 ms in start frame selection, a measured difference of 7-10 ms falls well within this method's margin of error.

The primary limitation of this approach is the inability to consistently and objectively define the start of the click action. Even minor differences in frame selection can introduce tens of milliseconds of error, which far exceeds the latency differences being measured between modern gaming mice.

As a result, this method lacks the precision required to evaluate subtle latency differences, and the findings shouldn't be considered reliable for comparing high-end devices.

Findings for the Follow-Up High-Speed Camera Test

We repeated the previous high-speed camera method with added markers on the tester's finger to improve movement tracking. Footage was recorded at 1000 FPS and 2142 FPS this time around for more precision.

For both the Endgame Gear OP1 8k v2 and the SUPERSTRIKE, we performed multiple clicks per run, with 3-4 clicks each.

Additionally, we used an in-house RTINGS tool that flashes white when a click is registered. This should be less resource-intensive than MS Paint, in case the previous method introduced latency. The in-house tool can synchronize with the camera FPS for frame-accurate comparison.

SUPERSTRIKE at 2142 FPS

1 frame ≈ 0.467 ms

6260 → 6220 = 40 frames → 18.7 ms
14319 → 14276 = 43 frames → 20.1 ms
21716 → 21660 = 56 frames → 26.2 ms

SUPERSTRIKE at 1000 FPS

1 frame = 1 ms

602 → 564 = 38 frames → 38 ms
2418 → 2394 = 24 frames → 24 ms
4370 → 4355 = 15 frames → 15 ms

Endgame Gear OP1 8k v2 at 2142 FPS

1 frame ≈ 0.467 ms

17077 → 17009 = 68 frames → 31.8 ms
19853 → 19817 = 36 frames → 16.8 ms
22907 → 22863 = 44 frames → 20.6 ms
8033 → 7980 = 53 frames → 24.8 ms

Endgame Gear OP1 8k v2 at 1000 FPS

1 frame = 1 ms

3246 → 3224 = 22 frames → 22 ms
6454 → 6410 = 44 frames → 44 ms
9417 → 9399 = 18 frames → 18 ms

Average results:

SUPERSTRIKE: 23.5 ms, with a range of 15-38 ms
Endgame Gear OP1 8k v2: 25.4 ms, with a range of 16.8-44 ms

Even though this test cycle made it easier to track finger movement thanks to the markers placed on the tester's finger, we realized that it's still difficult to pinpoint the exact moment of actuation with frame-level precision. Even with the added visibility, there's still likely a variance of a few frames in either direction, depending on the interpretation of the exact beginning of the movement.

However, the more significant observation from this dataset was that the results appear to depend more on human click consistency than initially expected. While we assumed clicking speed was relatively consistent across trials, the variation in measured latency suggests otherwise. Some clicks were clearly faster, while others were noticeably slower, which contributed to the spread in results more than measurement uncertainty alone.

Conclusion

Across all three investigations, human reaction testing, the modified "finger test" on the click latency rig, and the high-speed camera analysis, a consistent pattern emerged regarding the measurement of click latency.

Human reaction testing showed that large latency differences can appear in reaction-time results, but it's not precise enough to reliably detect sub-millisecond performance differences between modern high-end gaming mice. This is due to inherent human variability, which ranged from approximately 10-20 ms in our testing, far exceeding the differences being measured.

The modified click latency rig, using a human finger instead of a solenoid, produced results that remained consistent with RTINGS' objective measurements, with the Endgame Gear OP1 8k v2 measuring approximately 0.165 ms faster than the Logitech G PRO X2 SUPERSTRIKE. This supports the reliability of the click latency rig's methodology, even when real-world factors such as pre-travel and human actuation are introduced.

In contrast, the high-speed camera test highlighted the limitations of manual measurement techniques. The inability to consistently determine the exact start of a click introduced measurement uncertainty of up to approximately 30 ms, making it unsuitable for evaluating small latency differences. Some clicks were clearly executed faster, while others were slower, which directly contributed to the spread in measured latencies.

This is where a solenoid-based rig provides a key advantage. Unlike a human finger, a solenoid delivers a mechanically consistent actuation with controlled force and timing, removing variability from pressing speed entirely. Because actuation is electrically triggered, each press is initiated in a highly repeatable manner, eliminating the inconsistency seen with manual clicking.

Taken together, these findings support the conclusion that objective, instrumented testing is required to accurately measure click latency in modern gaming mice. While human testing and visual methods can provide useful context, they lack the precision needed to evaluate the extremely small performance differences at the high end of the market.

u/benpRTINGS

we measured particle concentration levels when refilling an ultrasonic humidifier with different types of water

Battle of the Hall Effects: Wooting 80HE vs NuPhy WH80 latency and loudness tests

LG G6 Review: Impressive Yet Disappointing

(Unlocked 48hrs) Samsung S95H OLED Review (S95F comparison in desc.)