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
WileCoyote - Friday, November 3, 2006 - link
I said it's too wordy. That means take out words. Are you people for real?Frumious1 - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
That post was too short. Three sentences with no real support to back it up. Lamest comment ever.Look, sorry you have poor reading skillz, but a lot of us are quite educated and like to know the WHY and HOW besides just the WHAT. My first thought was "how in the hell is this product supposed to do ANYTHING for frame rates!?" Gary answered that by looking into the details more than superficially. Oh, sure, it doesn't really deliver -- a 5% increase on a moderately high-end system is pretty silly for a $270 product -- but that it can affect frame rates at all is surprising to me. I now have hope for Windows Vista, at least on the networking stack side of things.
What's really odd is that the review is pretty clearly advising people to NOT go out and buy this "killer" product, because it just isn't that great. If I saw a review on AnandTech that bashed a product without any backing material, I'd feel I was reading something at HardOCP. Well, okay, they back up their complaints sometimes, but their testing methodology is worse than suspect. Remember the Core 2 "launch" reviews where they used a midrange GPU config to conclude that it did nothing for gaming performance?
Anyway, there seem to be quite a few new names on here for this article. Wonder how many are employed by BigFoot? It's like there are a bunch of people bashing Gary for even reviewing the product at all, another group that's bashing him for not liking the card, a third group bashing him for not being able to do a 1 page writeup, and then a few people that think: "nice review; didn't surprise me much with the results, but at least we can now know that Killer can help in certain situations, even if it's overpriced as hell."
I'm sure Gary was tested a lot more than is shown in this article. I've conversed with him in the past, and I'd wager he was pulling his hair out over this article. How many times did you write it Gary? Ten? More? I think you ought to post here and set the record straight, because my bet is that in terms of improving gaming performance the Killer NIC is as good as a NIC is going to get... which means the other NICs from Intel, 3COM, etc. are basically all as good as onboard solutions if that. There's really not much you can do to truly improve performance of a NIC for online gaming when you're looking at maybe 5ms worst case being delay added by the hardware and OS.
As I said above in an earlier comment, it would be nice to have more developers like Jon Carmac around, because he apparently knows how to already perform well without lots of extra hardware. Can't say his games are the greatest, but the Doom 3 engine and networking aspects (client/server architecture) are clearly ahead of most other FPS solutions.
WileCoyote - Wednesday, November 1, 2006 - link
I was trying to keep my comment short, simple, and to the point. I don't need to write a page defending my opinion on something as trivial as a product review. The numbers speak for themselves in this review. And it wasn't so much the quantity but rather the quality - there is little to no structure in the review. That's fact, not opinion. There is a better way to write a review - I've read hundreds of them on Anandtech.I guess my Bachelor's Degree in Anthropology from a well-respected U.S. university doesn't count for much and neither does the successful business I created/own which pays a six-figure salary.
Gary Key - Wednesday, November 1, 2006 - link
Apparently my MBA and the fact I am already retired (at 44 and doing this because I really enjoy it) does not count for very much either. LOL.....
Seriously, I am always looking to improve. How would you change the structure of the article?
Aikouka - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
Being that I run an FTP server that tends to see a decent amount of internal traffic, it actually sounds like a TNIC (or simply making a dedicated server) could actually be beneficial to me. Although, I sure have no desire to pay $300 for that card when I could easily spend the money on a second video card for SLi purposes or such. Also, I know switching from single to dual-core really helped to off-set the issue of FTP uploading on the local intranet. It really won't matter as when I build a new PC next month, I'm simple setting my old PC as a dedicated server to offload those annoying tasks.Also, Mlau, there are some games where "real estate" matters. World of Warcraft is a great example of this and I'm glad that I play the game in 1650x1080, because in certain situations, there's so much junk on your screen (I may call it junk but it actually helps :P), that you need all the extra room you can get. You may be happy in 1024x768, but that gives you no right to vehemently demean people for wanting to play in higher resolutions, which doing so also provides a better quality picture without wasting resources on Anti-Aliasing. Almost all the time, enjoying a game the way the developers designed/envisioned it can be an enriching experience for the gamer.
Gary, your comment about WoW being limited to 64 FPS... I think you may've left Vertical Sync on :D. I can easily get 90FPS on my dated Athlon 64 X2 4400+ with a GeForce 6800GT OC playing in 1650x1080 with max graphics settings. Albeit, I don't get a constant 90FPS, but it can be easily attainable in non-expansive places. So yeah, if your refresh rate on your LCD/CRT was set to 60Hz, you probably would see your game hover around 60-64FPS or somwhere between that and 30FPS. I know I turned VSync off on mine as I couldn't constantly achieve 60FPS, so the game lowered my FPS to about 30 with VSync turned on. Simply turning it off raised me to an easy 45 minimum with no tearing evident. I know that in the Hillsbrad/Alterac area, I would probably get around 45-60 depending on how far into the distance I could see.
Gary Key - Wednesday, November 1, 2006 - link
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html;jses...">Blizzard ResponseHi,
We tried your suggestions during testing and nothing helped. We used both LCD and CRT monitors with vsync off. This was with several different video cards and Core 2 Duo/AM2 X2 processors. The frame rates were always capped to 64 until we switched to a single core processor on either system. We contacted Blizzard directly and they confirmed the dual core bug. The link above has their response on line item 6. Are you using FRAPS to capture the frame rates? If so which version please?
Thanks!!!
goinginstyle - Thursday, November 2, 2006 - link
I downloaded FRAPS 2.81 and sure enough my 4800+ X2 is capped at 64FPS.otherwise - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
You can get an 10/100 ethernet card with a TOE dirt cheap for much less then $300 if you really want one. With most people who actuially need a TOE also demanding 10/100/1000 support, there is a glut of 10/100 TOE NICs.dijuremo - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
You will probably get more out of $300 if you get a hardware raid controller for your system (Areca comes to mind) which will not only provide a speed upin storage, but also redundancy for your system. I know it does nothing for your network performance, but is money better spent which is my point.I considered getting a Killer NIC for my new system, but did not do it because of price, no PCI-Express support (Mobo only has 2 PCI slots used for sound card and HDTV tuner and has 4 PCI Express slots, one used currently for Nvidia 7950GX2), plus performance gains were not that good (I read another review of this card about a month ago elsewhere).
As for the person saying sli/xfire is useless, you are totally wrong. At 1920x1080 (using the LVM-37w3 LCD monitor - 1080p native) you need sli or xfire to have decent speeds to play games with AA and AF. If you don't play games or play at 1280x1024 or less it does not matter, but above that you really need sli or xfire.
I also agree the article was a bit too long and actually more effective that a Lunesta overdose. Not sure if the writer is trying to avoid what just happened to HEXUS where they reviewed an Alienware PC and got e-mail back from the company saying they would not get any more harware because of the bad review...
heated snail - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
I don't mean to be a jerk, and I appreciate any sincere and fact-finding test/review article. However:I'm amazed, was this really a review of a basic hardware item? Because instead it reads like a mini-novel about all the difficulty the testers/reviewers had in doing their job. Is it too much to ask for a more verbally efficient writing style? About two paragraphs briefly acknowledging that this product has been hyped in the media, and acknowledging that testing was a little more difficult than usual... then get straight to the tests on page two and conclusions on page three. I can't believe how long it took to read through this whole thing with its very repetitive descriptions and self-references.