當你認真對待線上遊戲時，你會尋找你能找到的每一個優勢。問題是，將滑鼠**USB3.0埠會比USB2.0埠提供任何速度或響應優勢嗎？今天的超級使用者問答帖子討論了這個問題。

今天的問答環節是由SuperUser提供的，SuperUser是Stack Exchange的一個分支，是一個由社群驅動的問答網站分組。

照片由傑克·扎利姆（閃爍）提供。

問題

超級使用者讀者philipthegreat想知道將滑鼠**USB 3.0埠是否能提供任何速度優勢：

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?

將滑鼠**USB3.0埠是否會產生影響？

答案

超級使用者貢獻者AFH和Michael Hamilton為我們提供了答案。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.

接著是邁克爾·漢密爾頓的回答：

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).

有什麼要補充的解釋嗎？在評論中發出聲音。想從其他精通技術的Stack Exchange使用者那裡瞭解更多答案嗎？在這裡檢視完整的討論主題。