Killer NIC makes a difference in WoW

[Harem]

thinking about this one:

http://killer2100.bigfootnetworks.com/2/

Has anyone actually seen improvement from using this? Everything here has been theory but not really even anecdotal. Only $100 but I'd like to know someone noticed a difference after installing one, specifically a difference in their multiboxing play.

[Pycno]

I have the Killer NIC and I dont really think I would recommend it, onboard nics are as good IMO. No way I could differentiate them in a blind fold test.

If you've already got an i7 965EE, 12GB of ram, 2x SLI/Crossfire with top-end cards, add-on hardware processing sound card, add-on hardware processing RAID controller, RAID0 Velociraptrs, RAID0 SSDs.. an add-on hardware NIC processor is a logical solution and $230 is a relatively minor cost for the overall price of the machine.

That was what I thought when I purchased it, 230$ for a possible minor upgrade. However its more like 230$ for a downgrade to something with buggy drivers.

[Sam DeathWalker]

I have a killer in my main computer.

My main and 2nd computer have the same MB:

http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_I...n7Z&templete=2


My other 4 have the more expensive (lol):

http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_I...h4S&templete=2


My main computer only runs one client and gets under 100ms all the time, with the Killer card.

The 2nd computer runs seven clients and also gets under 100ms all the time, without the Killer card. I have windows media player on all the time on this computer also.

The other 4 sometimes get under 100ms and sometimes freeze and sometimes hit 3000ms, with the onboard

then I got these for the other 4 I got this intel nic and the freezing stoped.

Intel EXPI9301CTBLK Gigabit CT pci-e x1 Desktop Adapter

With 5 clients its 100-200ms with 7 clients they become unstable on SOME sometimes, ranging from 80ms - 400ms; ususally when there is lots of action they start to lag.


So I can't say the killer is worth anything, the 2nd computer is running perfect and I wish they were all the same. All have the same settings (and all use the latency registry trick from that leatrix addon)

I am connected at ipv4, I have clienty for microsoft networks, qos packet schduler.

auto negotiation speed is 1G / full duplex

All checksum offloads are enabled (although a lot of blizzard posts say not to).

recieve and transmit buffers are 512 each

Jumbo packet disabled
Large Send offload IPv4 enabled
Power functions are all off


anyone have any ideas how I can get all to operate like computer #2? Without changing the 4 older motherboards to the newer ....



Ok assuming that silencer is correct:

Since many web connections are TCP (because it's connection-based, while UDP will just throw packets as fast as possible), the real benefit of the Killer M1 is for UDP packets, which aren't used in WoW - WoW uses TCP/IP. The Killer M1 intentionally pushes UDP packet priority ahead of TCP for the lowest absolute ping in speed games - those that use UDP. Now, if you open a UDP-heavy application while running WoW, your WoW ping will take a back seat to whatever is sending UDP packets. Not usually a big deal, but something to be aware of. Fortunately, since the M1 NIC has its own fast processor, it can get more work done faster than your onboard NIC, so that helps reduce ping for both TCP and UDP.. but UDP is still where this card was meant to shine. Since the CPU has to do less work in processing network packets, it can do more work in executing your game faster and providing the graphics card(s) with more data to process. This both increases fps and ping.

you dont need the KILLER nic you need any NIC with a cpu onboard.



http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/24...er-worht-money

Zenmaster's hypothetical test was completely beside the point. The Killer NIC bypasses the Windows stack, this is where the latency reduction comes from, not from magically changing the speed of bits coming into and out of your modem.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/killer-m...view-1083.html



Table 5: PING Results for Crysis and Second Life (Min/Avg/Max msec)

Game Realtek Killer NIC Crysis 35/71/107 27/53/79 2L 43/87/131 38/67/96

What’s interesting about these results is a consistent speed-up in PING times between the Realtek GbE interface and the Killer NIC in a range from 8 (min) to 18 (avg) to 28 (max)milliseconds for Crysis, and from 5 (min) to 20 (avg) to 35 (max) for Second Life. This puts the average difference at about 18-20 milliseconds— which represents a substantial 23% to 25% improvement for a system with the M1 Killer NIC versus a built-in motherboard GbE interface. Though our other tests indicate this doesn’t translate into an equal percentage boost for frame rates (and reflects the size of the payloads in real gaming traffic as opposed to minimum packet size for PING traffic), it’s still a remarkable difference.
CPU Utilization

As we were running our game tests on both machines, we also kept an eye on CPU utilizations as reported in Windows Task Manager. In both of our test programs, we observed slight but measurable differences in CPU utilization between the machine with the M1 Killer NIC installed and the machine using the Realtek GbE interface on the Gigabyte motherboard. For Second Life, those differences were fairly small: they typically fell in a range of 1% to 4% (so that if, for example, the M1 machine reported 18% utilization we’d see somewhere between 19% and 22% on the other machine at the same time). For Crysis, those differences fell across a somewhat larger range from 1% to 6%, reflecting what we have to believe is more demanding network activity from that program.
Thus, there is some modest but still demonstrable proof for Bigfoot Networks’ claim that the Killer NIC can lighten the processing load on the PC’s CPU. Although we didn’t have the opportunity to test the hypothesis that a Killer NIC might benefit users of PCs with less powerful CPUs more than on our quad-core QX9650, we can’t help but speculate that in situations in which the CPU is more stressed under the processing load during Internet game play, the benefit of offloading is likely to be larger and more noticeable. In fact, this is a well-known effect on network [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]servers[/COLOR][/COLOR] with TOE cards, where differences in CPU utilization as large as 50% have been reported under heavy network loads with TOE cards in use (see Dell’s Boosting Data Transfer with TOE Technology or HP’s Using TCP/IP Offload Engine for some compelling evidence).
With a smaller number of TCP and UDP ports open at any given moment on a gaming PC and lower overall network traffic levels as well, the benefits of offloading are bound to be more limited on such a machine. But there’s no arguing that when handling its share of gaming and graphics processing, even a 3.0-GHz quad-core [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]Intel[/COLOR][/COLOR] processor benefits from how the Killer NIC offloads Layers 1 through 3 of the TCP/IP stack along with TCP checksums. We have to believe that this benefit will increase as the number of available processing cores and their processing speeds decrease. It might be interesting for owners of Killer NICs to post to our forums and share results with and without the card in place (give us your Second Life demo frame rates, PING times and CPU utilizations, as well as share frame rates from Crysis and other games of your choosing, please).



I don't know why they talk about fps, dosnt seem to me the two are all that related, you render where the extrapolated postiion of units are based upon the last data (thats why you see guys "overun" sometimes), fps is based upon the video cards specs and the speed of the texture transfers, not ping rate.

Ping rate though is very important to show where units are in real time.



Also it dosnt look like, for newer machines, the cpu offload is doing all that much, maybe if we are running a cpu's at close to max utilization then the nic card is going to help. Thats why my pings go down with fewer clients ....

Well for $100 plus bucks seems a faster processor is a better investment .....



http://12.129.242.24/thread.html?top...62576238&sid=1

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...66081304&sid=1



Humm why would you have the CPU do checksums; this is so easy to do without a full cpu; think I turn all my offloading off. Any NIC card should do checksums instantly; no reason to bug the cpu to do it. I turn off checksums on one of the 4 computers and see what happens.



Ya bottem line killer is worthless .....


Well rats Iv got 50-60 ms on the 3 intel nic's with the offloading ON, and the 4th that has the checksum offloading OFF its 105ms ..... with a single client. The two main computers have 60-70ms. Well it seems that with offloading off you get a higher ping but its a lot more consistent say 100-200ms instead of 70ms-1200ms with offloading on. Makes sense as the cpu usage increases you get higher ping with offloading on.

So if you always have low cpu usage then turn on offloading. If your cpu sometimes gets over 95 percent then your are better to have it off.