BigFoot Networks Killer NIC: Killer Marketing or Killer Product?
by Gary Key on October 31, 2006 2:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Networking
Test Setup
Our platform design represents a configuration that we feel is appropriate for testing the Killer NIC. It is a blend of components we felt like would be in a gaming system whose owner would potentially look at the Killer NIC and more importantly could afford the Killer NIC. Our motherboard choice was dictated by our testing requirements for comparing the best overall on-board NIC offering against what is being billed as the best NIC for gaming, period.
We are using an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 as it offers an excellent blend of price and performance at this time. Our processor choice is representative of what a typical mid to upper range gamer would utilize in their system currently and allows us to concentrate additional funds on a high-end GPU. Our high-end GPU choice is the MSI X1950XTX that addresses our system performance needs while ensuring our standard 1280x1024 resolution choice will not be completely GPU bound in testing. A 2GB memory configuration was chosen as most enthusiasts are currently purchasing this amount of memory.
All other components in our test configuration are typical in a current gaming system. We intentionally chose the Asus P5N32-SLI Premium for testing as it utilizes the new MCP-55 found in the NVIDIA nForce 590SLI chipsets for both Intel and AMD platforms. The networking capability found in the nForce 590SLI is currently the best available for on-board solutions from both an overall performance and features viewpoint. These features include packet prioritization, teaming, and TCP/IP acceleration. Additional information about these features can be located here.
Our platform design represents a configuration that we feel is appropriate for testing the Killer NIC. It is a blend of components we felt like would be in a gaming system whose owner would potentially look at the Killer NIC and more importantly could afford the Killer NIC. Our motherboard choice was dictated by our testing requirements for comparing the best overall on-board NIC offering against what is being billed as the best NIC for gaming, period.
| Standard Test Bed Performance Test Configuration |
|
| Processor: | Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.86GHz, 2MB Unified Cache) |
| RAM: | 2x1GB GeIL PC2-6400 800MHz Plus (GX22GB6400PDC) DDR2-800 3-4-3-9 timings, 2.20V (Micron Memory Chips) |
| Hard Drive: | Seagate 320GB 7200RPM SATA2 16MB Buffer |
| System Platform Drivers: | NVIDIA 9.53 |
| Video Cards: | 1 x MSI X1950XTX |
| Video Drivers: | MSI/ATI Catalyst 6.10 |
| CPU Cooling: | Scythe Infinity |
| Power Supply: | OCZ GameXstream 700W |
| Optical Drive: | Sony 18X AW-Q170A-B2 |
| Case: | Cooler Master CM Stacker 830 |
| Sound Card: | Bluegears b-Enspirer |
| Motherboards: | Asus P5N32-SLI Premium (NVIDIA nForce 590SLI) |
| Operating System: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| . | |
We are using an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 as it offers an excellent blend of price and performance at this time. Our processor choice is representative of what a typical mid to upper range gamer would utilize in their system currently and allows us to concentrate additional funds on a high-end GPU. Our high-end GPU choice is the MSI X1950XTX that addresses our system performance needs while ensuring our standard 1280x1024 resolution choice will not be completely GPU bound in testing. A 2GB memory configuration was chosen as most enthusiasts are currently purchasing this amount of memory.
All other components in our test configuration are typical in a current gaming system. We intentionally chose the Asus P5N32-SLI Premium for testing as it utilizes the new MCP-55 found in the NVIDIA nForce 590SLI chipsets for both Intel and AMD platforms. The networking capability found in the nForce 590SLI is currently the best available for on-board solutions from both an overall performance and features viewpoint. These features include packet prioritization, teaming, and TCP/IP acceleration. Additional information about these features can be located here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
87 Comments
View All Comments
Gary Key - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
I fully agree the article was probably too long. It was a case of trying to cover all the bases and then some. If we had left out the technology sections and reduced the commentary it would have read better as a basic hardware item. We looked at this as not being your basic NIC review.However, I am sure there would have been comments that we did not properly review the card or provide this same information. Thanks for the comments.
Crassus - Wednesday, November 1, 2006 - link
I agree with the comment above. I would have like an even more expanded page detailing the technology and the roots in the corporate sector. What I didn't really care about was the endless description of the pains it took to benchmark the card.Two things about that:
1. If it was easy, everyone could do it. You (and Anandtech) stand above the crowd for going the extra mile and giving us some added (useful) information. This is usually self-evident and doesn't require elaboration.
2. My firm expects me to get the job done, as, I suppose, it is the same with yours. No one gives a hoot as to all the steps I had to go through to get the job done, unless they offer some added value. Thinking about throwing something out of the window (if you're blessed with having one in your office) occurs to everyone at some point and certainly doesn't hold any additional value - in other words: it comes with the job. If it was otherwise, see (1) above. There's really no need to mention it a couple of times - unless you're reviewing your work instead of the product.
Gary Key - Wednesday, November 1, 2006 - link
I appreciate your comments. I am alawys open to other viewpoints and opinions. What paragraphs contained endless descriptions that in your opinion could have been cut? Email me if you can please.
I agree it comes with the job. The message I was trying to convey was one of total frustration with the product after six weeks of almost non-stop testing. There were several choice words I wanted to use but felt like that statement would be universally understood. ;-)
Sunrise089 - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
I really liked reading the article. When G80 comes out, we can cut strait to the benches, because I'm going to want to know whether or not to buy the card. None of us are going to buy this thing, but we're all enthusiests, so reading about it can still be fun. With performance changes so minor however, adding a little commentrary to spice up the review makes it a lot more entertaining for this reader.Frumious1 - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
I'm in agreement with Sunrise - liked the article and the sarcasm. I can only imagine your pain during the review. Can't believe how many people apparently lack the ability to read and need pictures. "Just give us two paragraphs saying whether or not to buy the card!" Bah! That's what the conclusion page is for, where it's pretty clear the card "works as advertised" which means fractional gains in a few games.Zaitsev - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
"Just give us two paragraphs saying whether or not to buy the card!"The only reason I still read Anandtech is because they do exactly the opposite. In articles like this one and the Conroe review, I think the pages discussing the technology are more interesting than the results. I can't talk from experience, but it also seems that it would get boring for the authors if they just punched out cookie cutter articles for every review.
As for the card, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I bought this instead of a Conroe.
michal1980 - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
i can sum in up for you in one line."In most cases the Killer-Nic Does Nothing"
as for windows vista.
it has a total new audio stack that is seperate from the kenernal, so in theory it could run on a core other then the main os kerenal.
Googer - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
FNA is the only thing that makes a killer nic really worthwhile.http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2037279...">http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2037279...
cryptonomicon - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
Assuming the review quantified "ping measurements" correctly, this thing has a long way to go. If it gave even a consistent 10% faster pings all the time it would be very appealing to pro-gaming. But from those ping charts, the results were truely inconclusive. The side effect of increased FPS was even more significant than any ping reduction.Looking forward to revisions or later models from Bigfoot though!
floffe - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
That's because in most cases 98% of the ping is not on the local computer, but from your internet connection point (DSL/cable modem or whatever) to the server. Tis means even cutting 5% off that will be very hard (in general. WoW seems to be an exception).