当你认真对待在线游戏时，你会寻找你能找到的每一个优势。问题是，将鼠标**USB3.0端口会比USB2.0端口提供任何速度或响应优势吗？今天的超级用户问答帖子讨论了这个问题。

今天的问答环节是由SuperUser提供的，SuperUser是Stack Exchange的一个分支，是一个由社区驱动的问答网站分组。

照片由杰克·扎利姆（闪烁）提供。

问题

超级用户读者philipthegreat想知道将鼠标**USB 3.0端口是否能提供任何速度优势：

I am looking for an authoritative answer backed by data. A friend asked me the other day if he would benefit from plugging his mouse into a USB 3.0 port instead of an available 2.0 port. I flippantly replied that it would make no difference at all. I am certainly not the only one to think that. See these resp***es to the debate on:

• Tom’s Hardware
• Overclock.net
• Logitech Forums
• Yahoo Answers

Intuitively, I do not think data throughput should be an issue. Mice worked fine over a serial port, and those transfer at a maximum of 112.5 Kbps. USB 1.0 runs at 1.5 Mbps (slow) or 12 Mbps (fast). USB 2.0 can handle 480 Mbps and 3.0 can reach 5 Gbps.

But what about resp***e speed? Are there any published studies of resp***e time between USB 2.0 and 3.0 ports?

My question is, was I right? Would it matter if I have a really fancy mouse? Can my friend safely blame his loss in League of Legends on his slow USB port?

将鼠标**USB3.0端口是否会产生影响？

答案

超级用户贡献者AFH和Michael Hamilton为我们提供了答案。首先，AFH：

1. A mouse is a slow device (the old PS/2 standard was RS232C-based), so USB 1.0 is more than adequate.
2. USB 3.0 ports have extra connectors for high-speed transfers, but also have standard USB 2.0 connectors for backward compatibility.
3. Unless your mouse has these extra connectors (and I can not imagine any mouse that has them), it will connect via USB 2.0 in a USB 3.0 connector.

So you are entirely correct. Plugging a mouse into a USB 3.0 connector confers no benefits whatsoever. If a mouse responds slowly, it is because something else is hogging the CPU to the detriment of the mouse driver.

接着是迈克尔·汉密尔顿的回答：

We need to take a look at the mouse’s polling rate. From that we can have a better idea of how much data is being tran**itted. If a mouse has a 100hz polling rate, it is sending data to the computer 100 times a second.

A standard mouse will send a 3-byte packet containing info on X/Y position information as well as button information. C***idering that 3 bytes are transferred each cycle of the polling rate, you could have 300 bytes per second being transferred.

By default, the USB polling rate is 125hz, so by our logic, the amount of data being tran**itted is 375 bytes per second.

Based on this, I do not think USB 3.0 is going to be any more beneficial than USB 2.0 (or even 1.0).

有什么要补充的解释吗？在评论中发出声音。想从其他精通技术的Stack Exchange用户那里了解更多答案吗？在这里查看完整的讨论主题。