Wireless might never match wired latency completely.
Wireless might never match wired latency completely.
Affirmative with a hesitation, probably not given today's tech limits.
What's the deal? Yes and no. Wireless suffers from latency due to its noise/error management. If you ignore corrupted data, you can skip the hassle. (Encryption shows you care about clean data so decryption is possible) You'll get speeds matching light in air. Wired is slower—copper is about a third of wireless or fiber, and it gets even slower with delays and repeaters. Less noise means fewer handshakes per packet for the same reliability. Wireless can outperform fiber only in rare cases. Could wireless beat copper? Maybe, but there are many restrictions. Imagine driving past your house on the wrong FM station while watching porn.
There isn’t any such thing on any linked device, whether wired or wireless. While a wired link might seem faster and steadier than a wireless one for signal transfer, modern high-speed gaming mice can narrow the gap to just milliseconds. The actual impact hinges mainly on the hardware and how the software handles the data. It’s also important to remember human perception has limits: movements under 20–30 ms are usually unnoticeable, and adding a 100 ms delay for recognition makes the whole zero-latency idea irrelevant. Regarding audio, certain low-latency formats can reach about 60 ms, which is still hard to detect. Personally, I don’t see any lag in video playback when using 5.0 headphones with a basic 5.4 dongle.
I'm here to listen—please share your perspective so I can address it directly.
It all hinges on the perspective. Wire serves as a basic channel for data transfer. Electrons travel at a sluggish pace, whereas fiber optics move quicker but remain physical links that lag behind light speed. Airborne signals face their own challenges, though the protocols at each device’s end often introduce delays through signal conversion, decoding, encryption, and other processes. This brought to mind Linus’s work with Wi-Fi directional beam technology like AirFiber. Some latency tests suggest it might edge out cables in certain scenarios, though details are limited. Still, many lack comprehensive data. Ultimately, it depends on the setup—modern high-end 2.4GHz devices for specific brands often outperform standard wired options. In practice, most people rely on wireless today, even for simple tasks like moving a mouse. Gamers usually opt for faster alternatives; reaction times can be measured in milliseconds, and even small delays like 100ms feel noticeable. I’ve discussed BT wireless codecs before—60ms is easily perceptible. Some consider 30ms too slow for gaming, yet sticking with BT just isn’t practical. For video, it’s generally acceptable, but you may need to tweak settings to avoid lag or sync issues.
It's accurate that many people are unaware of the real challenges. Gaming often involves more than just milliseconds—engine lag can be substantial, making microsecond differences irrelevant. Comparing reaction times in online games is misleading because synchronization isn't perfect across players. Bluetooth audio only supports limited scenarios; video and audio separation causes high latency issues. The performance of controllers is better than Bluetooth for sound, which explains why it works more reliably.
What engine is that, any decent one would be 1/10 of that or lower. Players do react at the same time more or less and with similar pings in games. I mean I play them daily, meet people of same pings decently low depening on servers, all of us high fps too. I was responding to the guy on visual response time etc. Just because the server may be slower than a mouse doesn't meen you don't need a faster mouse. Or if when people say you react at 100ms therefore you don't need anything fast, like you won't notice. Not how things work. I see people posting bs about numbers, having nonsense comparisons and just saying hey lok that number so small you can't tell. Yet to of data out there, literal people that play can atest too. Like saying 240Hz vs 480Hz it's like 2ms difference no way you notice that, humans react 100x slower. Nonsense. BT sucks, you use 2.4GHz dongle for audio. It's not data just the protocol transmission that's used. But also audio being analog so DAC needed.
The findings suggest differing response times. Thompson et al. found visual stimuli require about 180–200 ms to register, while sound needs roughly 140–160 ms. Kemp's work indicates auditory signals arrive at the brain in 8–10 ms, compared to 20–40 ms for visual input. This implies auditory processing is quicker than visual processing, supporting the idea that ART outperforms VRT.