Language:English
Menu
Language: English

Hardware tests

These hardware tests check the mouse, keyboard and screen you are using right now, in your browser, and tell you what they found.

What these tests tell you

A hardware test looks at the device in front of you: whether every key and button answers, how many times a second your screen draws a new picture and how often your mouse reports where it is. Nothing is installed, and nothing about your device is sent anywhere.

They are useful for a quick check before a game, when a key seems to stick, or when you are choosing between two screens.

What a browser can and cannot see

A browser sees less than a program on your computer does. It can tell when a key is pressed or a button is clicked, and it can time the pictures your screen draws, but it cannot look inside the device. If a test shows a problem, it is a reason to look more closely, not a final verdict on your hardware.

Results can also change a little with what else your computer is doing, so try a test twice.

Before you replace anything

If a key seems not to work, try it in another program and clean around it first. If a screen looks slower than it should, check the display settings of your system. A browser test is a quick first look, and the maker's own tools or a repair shop can tell you more.

Keep in mind that these tests are for information only and are not a guarantee about how your device will behave.

When to use them

A hardware test is best used on purpose: when a mouse seems to click twice, when the pointer jumps, when games feel less smooth than they should, or when you are comparing two keyboards. Close other tabs and programs first, charge a wireless device, and run the test twice before you draw a conclusion.

What the studies say

Your device adds its own delay to every timed test. When researchers pressed ordinary laptops and phones with a robot, browsers recorded the presses as slower than they were by an average of 57.6 ms to 132.9 ms, depending on the device and browser[1]. A study of esports players found that lower delay helped them more than a higher refresh rate on its own[2]. The Facts articles on input lag and how reaction time is measured explain the details.

Sources

  1. Pronk, T., Wiers, R. W., Molenkamp, B., & Murre, J. (2020). Mental chronometry in the pocket? Timing accuracy of web applications on touchscreen and keyboard devices. Behavior Research Methods, 52(3), 1371–1382.doi:10.3758/s13428-019-01321-2
    Four devices from 2015 and 2016: a MacBook Pro, an ASUS laptop, a Samsung Galaxy S7 and an iPhone 6S, pressed by a robot
    Abstract: "In controlled circumstances, as can be realized in a lab setting, very accurate stimulus timing and moderately accurate RT measurements could be achieved on both touchscreen and keyboard devices, though RTs were consistently overestimated." Table 4 "Descriptives of RT overestimations (in milliseconds) per device and browser" (OS, Web Browser, Minimum, Maximum, Mean, SD): "Android Chrome 46.0 103.5 69.8 7.4", "iOS Safari 48.3 96.3 57.6 6.5", "MacOS Safari 93.0 163.7 132.9 8.1", "Windows Chrome 64.7 70.6 68.5 1.7", "Windows Firefox 49.8 84.9 61.9 5.7". (read on 2026-10-06: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC7280355/fullTextXML)
  2. Spjut, J., Boudaoud, B., Binaee, K., Kim, J., Majercik, A., McGuire, M., Luebke, D., & Kim, J. (2019). Latency of 30 ms benefits first person targeting tasks more than refresh rate above 60 Hz. SIGGRAPH Asia 2019 Technical Briefs.doi:10.1145/3355088.3365170
    Eight skilled esports players aged 27 to 36
    Title: "Latency of 30 ms Benefits First Person Targeting Tasks More Than Refresh Rate Above 60 Hz". Abstract: "we isolate latency and refresh rate by artificially increasing latency when operating at high refresh rates. Eight skilled esports athletes then perform gaming-inspired first person targeting tasks under varying conditions of refresh rate and latency" "We show that reduced latency has a clear benefit in task completion time while increased refresh rate has relatively minor effects on performance when the inherent latency reduction present at high refresh rates is removed." "Subjects. Eight subjects (aged 27-36)" "The selected refresh rates were: 60 Hz (today's baseline), 120 Hz (today's gamer), 240 Hz (gaming enthusiast) and 360 Hz (experimental)." Table 1, click to photon latency at 60 Hz: "22 (6.0) 55 (5.9) 88 (5.8)". Figure 1: "For the 1-hit tasks, latency has a significant effect on task completion times while the effect of refresh rate is not statistically significant." (read on 2026-10-06: https://research.nvidia.com/sites/default/files/pubs/2019-11_Latency-of-30/FPS_Tasks_sa2019_AuthorVersion.pdf)