BigFoot Networks Killer NIC: Killer Marketing or Killer Product?
by Gary Key on October 31, 2006 2:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Networking
Ethernet NIC Performance
Our current motherboard test suite includes LAN performance measurements and we will utilize this same test today. All of the boards listed utilize PCI or PCI Express based controllers with the only difference being the supplier of the core logic.
The Windows 2000 Driver Development Kit (DDK) includes a useful LAN testing utility called NTttcp. We used the NTttcp tool to test Ethernet throughput and the CPU utilization of the various Ethernet Controllers used on the Intel motherboards.
We set up one machine as the server; in this test, an Intel system with an Intel CSA Gigabit LAN connection. Intel CSA has a reputation for providing fast throughput and is a logical choice for our Gigabit LAN server.
On the server side, we used the following Command Line as suggested by the VIA whitepaper on LAN testing:
No real surprises here as the Killer NIC has a Marvell PHY and utilizes the PCI interface for operation. The throughput rates and CPU utilization of the Killer NIC was very competitive with our other PCI based solutions. However, the NVIDIA nForce 590SLI had the best overall performance numbers in these tests. BigFoot Networks was adamant about the fact they concentrated on lower latency and not improving throughput on the card since most network connections while gaming will not saturate the PCI bus.
Ethernet Outbound Ping Performance
Our final benchmark takes a look at the ping performance of each of our products while playing F.E.A.R. and uploading a 400 MB file to a separate client on another network. Our D-Link DGL-4100 router and the NVIDIA nForce 590SLI include packet prioritization for outbound traffic while gaming. We decided to see how well these solutions stacked up with the Killer NIC that can also prioritize inbound traffic.
All three of our products that advertise packet prioritization are within 3% of each other in the numbers with our D-Link DGE-550T trailing by around 33%. Why a serious gamer would actually want to upload large files while playing online is beyond us but in case you want to then our three solutions provide the capability to do so without an issue. However, be aware that throughput suffered by an average of 44% for the upload file test with our three solutions when compared to the D-Link NIC during testing.
Our current motherboard test suite includes LAN performance measurements and we will utilize this same test today. All of the boards listed utilize PCI or PCI Express based controllers with the only difference being the supplier of the core logic.
The Windows 2000 Driver Development Kit (DDK) includes a useful LAN testing utility called NTttcp. We used the NTttcp tool to test Ethernet throughput and the CPU utilization of the various Ethernet Controllers used on the Intel motherboards.
We set up one machine as the server; in this test, an Intel system with an Intel CSA Gigabit LAN connection. Intel CSA has a reputation for providing fast throughput and is a logical choice for our Gigabit LAN server.
On the server side, we used the following Command Line as suggested by the VIA whitepaper on LAN testing:
Ntttcpr -m 4,0,‹server IP› -a 4 -l 256000 -n 30000
On the client side (the motherboard under test), we used the following Command Line:Ntttcps -m 4,0,‹client IP› -a 4 -l 256000 -n 30000
At the conclusion of the test, we captured the throughput and CPU utilization figures from the client screen.No real surprises here as the Killer NIC has a Marvell PHY and utilizes the PCI interface for operation. The throughput rates and CPU utilization of the Killer NIC was very competitive with our other PCI based solutions. However, the NVIDIA nForce 590SLI had the best overall performance numbers in these tests. BigFoot Networks was adamant about the fact they concentrated on lower latency and not improving throughput on the card since most network connections while gaming will not saturate the PCI bus.
Ethernet Outbound Ping Performance
Our final benchmark takes a look at the ping performance of each of our products while playing F.E.A.R. and uploading a 400 MB file to a separate client on another network. Our D-Link DGL-4100 router and the NVIDIA nForce 590SLI include packet prioritization for outbound traffic while gaming. We decided to see how well these solutions stacked up with the Killer NIC that can also prioritize inbound traffic.
All three of our products that advertise packet prioritization are within 3% of each other in the numbers with our D-Link DGE-550T trailing by around 33%. Why a serious gamer would actually want to upload large files while playing online is beyond us but in case you want to then our three solutions provide the capability to do so without an issue. However, be aware that throughput suffered by an average of 44% for the upload file test with our three solutions when compared to the D-Link NIC during testing.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
87 Comments
View All Comments
mlau - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
Correct, I haven't (I do have bills to pay and don't waste what's left on improving my laptop). To me it's absolutely not worth shelling out 500$ so that oblivion runs with 5 fps more. Reducing resolution costs nothing. With the saved money you can buy loads of beers which will make playing that game much more interesting :)The card is too expensive for what it offers, and its benefits will vanish with the
next cpu generation, no doubt. What makes the card interesting is the integrated
offload of all of linux' filtering/routing. The card is marketed to the wrong crowd.
PS: I think ati and nvidia need to be congratulated for finding another
reason for gamers to shell out money. (and look, ati also wants you to buy 3 cards in the
near future, for another completely useless thing: physics "simulation". I bet hundreds
of people can't wait to post benchmarks and how it improved their framerates and how
"physically correct" the dust now settles in $GAME)
rushfan2006 - Wednesday, November 1, 2006 - link
Agreed. I am a gamer a very long time gamer btw...if that counts for anything to do with anything...LOL...I've always built my own gaming boxes throughout the years -- so I think I have some relevant experience to base my opinions on. Though the guy is a bit brutish in how he makes his remarks, factually I believe he's correct in that right now with the state of technology the price:performance ratio for dual cards in games is just not there. If I'm going to invest a total of $1000 (two cards) I'd want to see DRAMATIC improvements. Now we all have our own standards -- so let me define mine...even 10% performance game for that investment is NOT "dramatic" to me. Research the benchmarks from your favorite tech sites, don't take my word for it -- the benchmarks speak for it.As for the topic of this Killer NIC...for me personally, as a gamer, its just a waste of money and the concept of it kind of makes me laugh to be honest.
imaheadcase - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
I agree, crossfire/SLI is not all that at all. Its just a marketing tool to make gamers think they need it. The difference though is that it has some nice uses other than games.Games should be the LAST thing people should think about when getting SLI/Crossfire.
Frumious1 - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or idiotic. Hopefully the former? Marketing tools are trying to peddle something that has a negligible impact. You know, convincing people to upgrade from a 2.4 GHz E6600 to a 2.93 GHz X6800 for three times the cost... maximum performance increase is 22% for a 200% price hike! CrossFire and SLI on the other hand can give up to a 90% (and usually at least 50%) performance increase for a 100% price increase.Yup, that's totally marketing. So are large LCDs, because those are completely useless. (Yes, that's sarcasm.)
feelingshorter - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
How about spend 300 bucks and buy windows? My bit defender works just fine as a firewall and doesn't use 300 dollars worth of CPU. Hell, you can buy a new cpu and off set any performance hit using software firewall with 300 bucks!Hypernova - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
But as the review says currently there are still NOTHING that shows the potential of FNapps. This is the card 2nd biggest selling point yet there's still nothing to show for it.cosmotic - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - link
I don't think the "per second" is appropriate.