Slashdot Mirror
Killer NIC Hands-On Testing
basscomm writes "IGN has gotten their hands on the 'Killer' NIC recently mentioned here on Slashdot and have written a two part article detailing their impressions: 'The performance boost we got out of the Killer NIC in this testing exceeds Bigfoot Networks' own claims of 10-15% gains by a long shot and certainly seems to validate the potential of the technology. We suspect, however, that the fact that these computers were marginal at running F.E.A.R. in the first place had an impact in the comparison. In many cases the non-Killer NIC machine became absolutely bogged down as particles flew and grenades exploded, enough so that the entire machine would hang for a moment as things got sorted out. Obviously this murdered average fps figures.'"
Killer NICs, hanging machines, framerates getting murdered ... oh, Jack Thompson, you were right all along!
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
The article is nothing but a slashvertisement. But, if you want a _real_ NIC killer, here you go.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Yes it runs Linux...
If you did a double take at the spec's of the Killer NIC's NPU you weren't alone. It's dramatically overkill for common networking processing that the card will encounter. That doesn't mean it's useless, however. Far from it, as a matter of fact. The Killer NIC is actually running an onboard Linux build that handles all its networking duties, and, best of all, is entirely accessible to the end user via console prompt or with what Bigfoot Networks is calling Flexible Network Applications (FNA).
Now, does it run *IN* Linux? Probably not.
This is a pretty cool concept - a self-contained VM in hardware to handle your whole networking stack.
It could have potential security benefits as well, in that it would likely be impossible to use say a buffer overflow exploit in a networking protocol with this card, because the overflow would occur *inside the VM*. All that would happen is your NIC would suddenly die - not *great*, but better than having your machine compromized. The host OS could probably even detect this lockup and 'reboot' the VM on the card.
I'd just buy a gigabit-capable mobo.
/* No Comment */
We suspect, however, that the fact that these computers were marginal at running F.E.A.R. in the first place had an impact in the comparison.
Which is why spending 300 bucks on a NIC is such a retarded move. Why not spend that money to upgrade the video card, or add more ram, or do something that's going to bring the level of the machine up a few notches?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
The whole point of the thing is **there is no OS TCP/IP stack**.
The whole networking stack runs directly on the card. 100% of all networking load is offloaded from your main CPU onto the CPU on the card.
It is **supposed** to 'intercept incoming 'ping' requests and respond from it's TCP/IP stack immediately'.
I'm tired of these motherfuckin' snakes in these motherfuckin' computers!
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
Well, the article's point is that its advantage is that it helps increase FPS due to lower CPU use. You're talking ping when they're talking FPS. Whether its worth 300 dollars for that FPS boost instead of spending 300 dollars elsewhere in the comp to improve FPS is another question, however.
What about the snake oil of being incredibly self-important without reading the article and blithely dismissing the product? Maybe this little gem, straight from the article will deflate your little bubble of self-righteousness:
Pings were relatively similar to the standard box, though we did notice latency spikes much less often on the Killer NIC'ed machine.
So yeah....you are so right. They are merely bypassing the cpu with ping requests, and somehow that is magically giving them higher fps and a smoother gameplay experience.
You know, this whole "I'm holier than thou without even reading the article" bs on slashdot is getting really tiresome(I have fallen into the same pit many times myself, I know) It really does inhibit intelligent debate about the article and just makes people feel so much more pompous(as evidenced by frequent use of such words as "snake oil") Oy....
Monstar L
Awright, color me ignorant but I'm not finding a whole lot of technical info on this so I'll ask the crowd:
How is this different than any other high-end NIC with onboard processor?
By this I am referring to the high-capacity NICs which have been made for the server market for many years by various companies. E.g. Intel has had a series of NICs for ages which have (if I recall correctly) an onboard i860 CPU, RAM etc and it's own little OS in firmware to offload the number crunching from the OS. (And a damn tiny set of drivers as well since all that code was on the board instead of the driver files).
As near as I can tell this is just like any other of these NICs only somebody slapped some pretty graphics and plastic doodads on it and tripled the price.
Or am I completely off base and this really is a quantum leap in areas other than marketing...?
Well, the result certainly is interesting, but I don't really trust their conclusion. If anything, they are showing what an onboard NIC tacked on for about $1.50 is really worth. I agree that it would be quite a bit more interesting to test the performance against a decent dedicated network card, many of which do quite a bit of offloading as it is.
It's also worthwhile to note that the card is bundled with F.E.A.R. and arguably biased towards it -- perhaps the game has code to better take advantage of the capabilities of the hardware or god forbid artifically cripple itself if not running with the hardware. It certainly wouldn't be the first time we've seen such a claim, with the PhysX drivers showing faster performance in software-only mode on very new, very fast cpu's despite a game generally refusing to run with the added physics settings without the hardware.
As you noted, getting a better video card would be the more intelligent option.
But, the PRIMARY problem is that they're running the test on two different machines. Even if they're the same make/model/etc, it doesn't matter.
Another item is that you SCRIPT the test. You don't play the game itself.
And, finally, related to what you were saying, you get a machine that does not have trouble running the app in the first place. Upgrade the video card, get a better processor, OR RUN A LESS DEMANDING GAME!
And put a SNIFFER on the network to find out what is happening on the wire. If we're talking a hub, a card that spews packets is going to outperform a card that obeys the protocols if they're played on the same network.
This "review" reads like a crappy ad for that card. There's no real information.
Your right. I'll make sure to give you 20 dollars once i go down to the atm machine and withdraw it. Hopefully i wont forget my pin number this time!
(symantics trolls make me sick. please kindly die)
(i bet misspelling semantics really ground your gears didnt it)
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Or at the very least, Barely Legal #8.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
A TOE is exactly that, a TCP Offload Engine. I tis not a replacement for a networking stack - what it does is assists in the constructoion and destruction of packets in the TCp protocol. it doe snothing for other protocols, such a UDP, ICMP, IGMP, etc.
This card is a complete top to bottom stack (as complete as Linux's stack is, since it *is* Linux's stack). The host OS's networking layer is totally bypassed and all commands are given to the card's stack. It's not really the same thing as TOE at all.