BigFoot Networks Killer NIC: Killer Marketing or Killer Product?
by Gary Key on October 31, 2006 2:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Networking
Killer NIC Technology
Hopefully you are still with us after the previous segment as writing it was better than taking a dose of Lunesta. In all seriousness, the technology of offloading network transactions to a dedicated processor has proven to be very beneficial in the corporate server environment. The typical TNIC is designed to handle data payloads that are larger than 8KB and in certain instances will have reduced performance (lower throughput and higher latencies) with smaller and more frequent data payloads in the 1KB to 4KB range. This range is what most messaging traffic, web services, and real-time data applications such as games utilize at this time. TNICs are generally optimized for TCP (transmission control protocol) packets where the vast majority of games today utilize UDP (user datagram protocol) packets for data transmission.
The differences between the two protocols are numerous but we will hit the highlights. TCP has a standard header length of twenty bytes versus eight for UDP. The normal TCP header will contain metric information such as sequence and acknowledgement numbers along with a requirement for a checksum number. UDP packets do not include metrics and the checksum information is optional. In other words, UDP does not provide the reliability, security, or ordering (queue) guarantees that TCP can deliver. The datagrams in the UDP packet may arrive out order or not at all and your system or application may never notice. Unlike TCP, UDP provides no guarantees for delivery or proper queuing, so why use it? The answer is simple: UDP is faster and far more efficient for time sensitive applications such as gaming, and you don't need every data packet to game properly. (I.e., if you miss one packet that says player X is at coordinates (10,10,15) but you get the next packet that shows X at (12,11,15), the missing packet will not seriously impact the overall experience unless of course you missed a shot or took one.) With this simple premise in mind BigFoot Networks decided to take TOE technology and design a TNIC that focused on UDP protocols and latency reduction.
The main technology focus of BigFoot Networks is centered on their LLR technology. LLR (Lag and Latency Reduction) technology that implements a 1-packet 1-interrupt model to eliminate the entire queuing and buffering operations standard NICs do during the packet receipt and transmission process. When in game mode, the Killer NIC will also completely bypass the Windows networking stack which contributes to further latency or lag reductions depending upon the application. When BigFoot Networks discusses ping improvements in games they are not talking about reducing ping through your network or at the server. This is completely out of their control and although their marketing information is not clear about it the reduction in ping comes on the host machine. These reductions come from bypassing the Windows Network Stack while in Game mode. Depending upon the application and packet size there is generally a 1~3ms delay due to system buffering and another 3~10ms delay in the queuing and processing of data packets in the current Windows Network Stack.
What makes LLR work is the NPU (network processing unit) on the card. This processor powers both the Windows Network Stack bypass engine and the 1-packet 1-interrupt model. In short, this NPU gets the normal network transactions out of the graphics path in games. This can result in improvements in FPS (frames per second) and reduced lag. With a standard network card, before nearly every graphics frame is drawn, there is first a check to the server to see if a new data packet has arrived or if one needs to be sent. Checking the server for new data packets can use up processor clock cycles whether or not data is there. Instead of a multitude of interrupts as we discussed earlier, the Killer NIC will receive or send those data packets in a single instruction. The Killer NIC has the further ability of interrupting the game directly when new data arrives. The Killer NIC is designed around reducing latencies and not throughput.
While LLR technology is impressive to some degree we have to temper any enthusiasm with the fact that most games are designed very differently in their handling of network tasks. Some games do not check for new network data on every graphics frame so any FPS improvements will be minimal at best or completely nonexistent the majority of time. Several older games do not use UDP packets so performance could suffer as the Network Stack bypass model is not used and the card must act as standard NIC. The one thing that we have learned during testing is that many games do not report accurate latency (ping rates) so any improvements are not as measurable but at times can be felt do to smoother game play. The basic TOE and TNIC technology still applies to this card and has been proven over the past few years in the corporate server environment. Converting this technology to the desktop with the added spin of improving gaming is certainly an admirable feat but how well does it work? We will answer that question in a few pages but first let's take a look at the obligatory marketing information.
Hopefully you are still with us after the previous segment as writing it was better than taking a dose of Lunesta. In all seriousness, the technology of offloading network transactions to a dedicated processor has proven to be very beneficial in the corporate server environment. The typical TNIC is designed to handle data payloads that are larger than 8KB and in certain instances will have reduced performance (lower throughput and higher latencies) with smaller and more frequent data payloads in the 1KB to 4KB range. This range is what most messaging traffic, web services, and real-time data applications such as games utilize at this time. TNICs are generally optimized for TCP (transmission control protocol) packets where the vast majority of games today utilize UDP (user datagram protocol) packets for data transmission.
The differences between the two protocols are numerous but we will hit the highlights. TCP has a standard header length of twenty bytes versus eight for UDP. The normal TCP header will contain metric information such as sequence and acknowledgement numbers along with a requirement for a checksum number. UDP packets do not include metrics and the checksum information is optional. In other words, UDP does not provide the reliability, security, or ordering (queue) guarantees that TCP can deliver. The datagrams in the UDP packet may arrive out order or not at all and your system or application may never notice. Unlike TCP, UDP provides no guarantees for delivery or proper queuing, so why use it? The answer is simple: UDP is faster and far more efficient for time sensitive applications such as gaming, and you don't need every data packet to game properly. (I.e., if you miss one packet that says player X is at coordinates (10,10,15) but you get the next packet that shows X at (12,11,15), the missing packet will not seriously impact the overall experience unless of course you missed a shot or took one.) With this simple premise in mind BigFoot Networks decided to take TOE technology and design a TNIC that focused on UDP protocols and latency reduction.
The main technology focus of BigFoot Networks is centered on their LLR technology. LLR (Lag and Latency Reduction) technology that implements a 1-packet 1-interrupt model to eliminate the entire queuing and buffering operations standard NICs do during the packet receipt and transmission process. When in game mode, the Killer NIC will also completely bypass the Windows networking stack which contributes to further latency or lag reductions depending upon the application. When BigFoot Networks discusses ping improvements in games they are not talking about reducing ping through your network or at the server. This is completely out of their control and although their marketing information is not clear about it the reduction in ping comes on the host machine. These reductions come from bypassing the Windows Network Stack while in Game mode. Depending upon the application and packet size there is generally a 1~3ms delay due to system buffering and another 3~10ms delay in the queuing and processing of data packets in the current Windows Network Stack.
What makes LLR work is the NPU (network processing unit) on the card. This processor powers both the Windows Network Stack bypass engine and the 1-packet 1-interrupt model. In short, this NPU gets the normal network transactions out of the graphics path in games. This can result in improvements in FPS (frames per second) and reduced lag. With a standard network card, before nearly every graphics frame is drawn, there is first a check to the server to see if a new data packet has arrived or if one needs to be sent. Checking the server for new data packets can use up processor clock cycles whether or not data is there. Instead of a multitude of interrupts as we discussed earlier, the Killer NIC will receive or send those data packets in a single instruction. The Killer NIC has the further ability of interrupting the game directly when new data arrives. The Killer NIC is designed around reducing latencies and not throughput.
While LLR technology is impressive to some degree we have to temper any enthusiasm with the fact that most games are designed very differently in their handling of network tasks. Some games do not check for new network data on every graphics frame so any FPS improvements will be minimal at best or completely nonexistent the majority of time. Several older games do not use UDP packets so performance could suffer as the Network Stack bypass model is not used and the card must act as standard NIC. The one thing that we have learned during testing is that many games do not report accurate latency (ping rates) so any improvements are not as measurable but at times can be felt do to smoother game play. The basic TOE and TNIC technology still applies to this card and has been proven over the past few years in the corporate server environment. Converting this technology to the desktop with the added spin of improving gaming is certainly an admirable feat but how well does it work? We will answer that question in a few pages but first let's take a look at the obligatory marketing information.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
87 Comments
View All Comments
LoneWolf15 - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
Almost forgot my one other point: As others have said, Vista's TCP stack is completely different. If the Killer NIC is designed largely around the way previous versions of Windows work, even with Vista drivers it could turn out to be a high-priced piece of hardware that functions no better than a regular PCI nic.TonyB - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
Instead of paying $300 to improve your World of Warcraft PIng Times you can simply do a little research. find out which WoW server is located in your geographic zone. If you live in California, look for a West coast server, if you're in New York, look for a East coast server , if you're in Chicago look for a Central server. Pay the $25 character transfer fee and move your account to the new server, viola!! decreased ping times.ps: this only works if you aren't playing in a server thats in your geographic zone already.
VooDooAddict - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
Because to you... Free = $25 transfer fee and no longer playing with the same group of friends?? Not an option for most people.I aplaud BigFoot for targeting this need with thier product. Riding the coat tails of something like WoW is a tried and true buisness practice. However, it's a failed execution and from the looks of it due mainly to the price. Everyone else agree that if priced for $49 or less they could start enjoying part of that big pile of money called WoW?
$49 for a card that could help keep things running smoothly in large raids with teamspeak running full tilt? They could drop the giant K and the embedded linux to help reduce costs as 95% of the WoW target wouldn't care about those features.
Spacecomber - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
I'll try not to repeat what has already been said about this NIC and Anandtech's review of it; I did have a few random thoughts after skimming through the article.I felt like I had to give BigFoot credit for apprarently seeking out this review from Anandtech. Although they had a lot to gain from a good review, because of the extent of Anandtech's readership and reputation, they must have known that their card would have to deliver on what was advertised in order to get any sort of positive grade (and in the end it did fail to deliver on all but a insignificant fraction of what it promised).
On the other hand, this gets us to the meat of the article. Besides the issue of price, the main problem with this card is that it just isn't ready for prime-time, yet. This means that anyone who does spend $280 on this card is essentially signing up as a beta tester for a product this is still in development. Although gamers probably are familiar with this role (being the first to own some new hardware or new game means being the first to encounter unresolved and frustrating bugs), it still seems a bit perverse to have to pay so much money for this dubious honor.
Given that this seems to be current state of affairs with "cutting edge" games and hardware, I couldn't help imaginging how it would make more sense to put the (presumably) free products into the hands of users who know that they are expected to beta test and work with tech/support staff to make a potentially good product better, rather than the apparent current practice of putting new products into the hands of people who are only required to evangelize for the company.
I guess somewhere along the way the marketing people won out, and comapnies now find their money better spent on marketing rather than product development. Personally, I can't believe that viral marketing is going to be more helpful at making this product a success than would money spent on further testing and development.
Essentially, this is what BigFoot got by their providing a card to Anandtech for testing (constructive feedback and a willing partner to test out potential fixes - in the form of new drivers). But, I suppose BigFoot has bills to pay, now, before they can even worry about getting this card fully up to specification, and this means that someone has to pay.
WileCoyote - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
Review was too wordy! Just large paragraphs of text without any type of organization. Dullest Anandtech article ever.goinginstyle - Wednesday, November 1, 2006 - link
Dullest response ever and it did not take a PhD to write my response. The article flowed from an introduction, with understandable technology descriptions that were not in other reviews, to results with a subjective/objective based ending. It had a couple of wordy sections but it was a lot better than most of the one line sentence descriptions you see in articles today. So please go buy a card, test it, and then provide us your perfect review. If you are unwilling to do this then at least tell us how it should be organized so anthropologists from around the world can understand it. I am sure Eric R. Wolf is turning over in his grave today because an anthropologist did not like the organization of an article.
WileCoyote - Thursday, November 2, 2006 - link
Chill out! Don't get so stressed out over 3 sentences and someone else's opinion. Big deal, I think it's a poorly written article when compared to previous ones at Anandtech. And I'm not questioning the author's education or net worth. I have left dozens of positive comments for previous Anandtech articles/authors so I'm not trolling either.goinginstyle - Thursday, November 2, 2006 - link
The fact is you have not offered an opinion on how to improve the article. You bash it but have not replied as to how you would have written it. If you think it is poorly written and have no issue critizing the author then at least leave a few comments on how you would have changed it. He at least asked for your opinion and others on how to improve the article. If you cannot respond in a professional manner to that request then you are trolling. Tell us how you would have organized the article? Better yet, test the card, and post your own review. You could simply take the time and email Gary with your revisions. He has already edited the article and the sections I thought were a little wordy are gone. Of course I emailed him and relayed my thoughts about the subject instead of dropping a one line dump in the forums.
WileCoyote - Friday, November 3, 2006 - link
Based on your replies I have learned the following:1. If you think an article is poorly written, buy the item and review it yourself.
2. If you do not write in a "professional manner" do not write anything at all. Ha!
3. If you say an article is "too wordy" people will not understand that the solution is to write less words.
4. Talking with people here is a big waste of time. They think they are always right and smarter than you.
The article was boring to me and I dropped a note to say that. I'm sorry for any hurt feelings as a result. If you know me better than I do and want to argue that the article was not boring to me, then feel free. Everything else you have said has nothing to do with what I originally said. I don't know, maybe you had a bad day at work and need to take it out here? Or maybe you want to aim at the easiest target in a thread... say, mine? Go find something challenging and worth spending time on. Unless this is the only way you feel smart? By the way, this post was too wordy. Boring even...yawn.
goinginstyle - Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - link
You must work in a really small cube. Yawn......