A new story entry has been added:
[drupal=599]GIGABYTE Deploys G1-Killer Gaming Series Motherboards[/drupal]
Quote:
By: Charles Gantt
<b>City of Industry, USA
Printable View
A new story entry has been added:
[drupal=599]GIGABYTE Deploys G1-Killer Gaming Series Motherboards[/drupal]
Quote:
By: Charles Gantt
<b>City of Industry, USA
Snake oil!!
So how do these NICs prioritize gaming packets once they have entered the Ethernet cable? Oh, they don't? So no latency is actually reduced. I could see how off-loading network traffic from a single-core CPU could boost performance a very tiny bit, but honestly, who is using a single core CPU in this board? Nobody, because there isn't a single-core for this socket.
Also, the board is just plain ugly!:D
Other than that, it looks like a solid board.
In person, that board looks amazing. I saw all three models, and I want one.
As far as the nic goes, I can get some more info for you from Killer.
Killer NIC's are total rubbish. They're also very expensive. Hopefully it doesn't substantially affect the boards cost. That would be very unfortunate.
I dont like the heat-sink, however in a themed build I'd probably love it. It'd be cooler if it was a user made addition, though.
Aside from that it looks to be a pretty solid board. Interested to see the price though.
Edit: I'd just like to say that Killer NIC's are technically speaking the best in the industry, however the average consumer will NOT see a substantial difference at all. There are too many variables you can't control and most NIC's work just as well. The cost is the only reason I dismiss them as rubbish.
Are you sure about that? If so I would love to see your data on your statement. I spent quite a bit of time talking with their engineers at CES and apparently they have quite a bit of data that says otherwise. It's all about packet prioritization, that analyzes and pre-processes the data before it hands it off to windows. The result is less overhead for windows to handle and quicker the game gets the data. Which could mean the difference between you getting the kill in an FPS or your opponent. As for the price the original ($279) was because frankly it was just expensive to produce, but over time and technology advances the price has dropped considerably (~$85).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothair
I will agree that when the Killer nic was first introduced in 2006, it was complete overkill. I believe it was a product that was too far ahead of its time. Now in a world of instant messaging, teamspeak, VOIP, torrents, and other network resources, the OS has a lot more to deal with, and since it handles those requests inline, packet prioritization can be a much larger benefit.
Calling it rubbish is a bit like calling the motor in a Ferrari rubbish because the average driver would not see its benefit over a Chevy on regular city streets.
EDIT: I guess I should refresh the page before I reply incase there was an update to the post I am replying to.. heh..
Again this product is not being marketed towards your average user. Its meant for gamers and enthusiasts, not your average facebooker. But honestly I can see where the technology could benefit more then just the gamers out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothair
Believe me, if it was snake oil there wouldn't be $1000 Intel NICs in all of your servers that do the same things a Killer NIC does.
Pricey, but for someone on something like satellite, irreplaceable occasionally.
Didn't you win one of these boards Overide? Or was that something else? If so, perhaps we could see a real world test on the subject?
Edit: I read a few up to date reviews on the 2100. Basically, small increase for a somewhere in the middle price. Not as bad as it's earlier models, but there are definitely better ways to spend that money and as the reviews said, there are other solutions to increase FPS as well. As I said before, it's still not a substantial increase. It's primarily useful if you're already having out of the ordinary issues in this exact area. There are also issues with TCP apparently, but in a way that should affect too many people.
I'm not impressed, exactly. But I wouldn't call it snake oil either. It's just nothing to get excited about.
I'd only consider it if I were a professional gamer or if I were having issues that a dedicated NIC would help solve.
Nah, it's still snake oil. Windows spend less than a millisecond dealing with individual network packets. If you eliminate that latency, great. However, when you have 20+ milliseconds of latency between your beast of a gaming rig and your host server, it doesn't help even the most demanding of gamers. Eliminating <1% of the lag for 1000% more money doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Plus, network services should never even be using 1% of a CPU cores cycles...if it is, something is wrong. Bigfoot is improving hardware on the wrong end. They should instead build a faster internet backbone network and only allow gaming traffic on it for a hefty fee. That would actually be useful...though prohibitively expensive.:whistler:
Seriously though, post any data about it that you guys have. Also, see if you can get one to review and bench it against a bargain bin cheapo. I'd love to see how much latency still exists after all the CPU-offloading and packet prioritization.:rolleyes:
Only servers that see disgusting amounts of network traffic need something like that. No game will ever stress a NIC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayin
I would say this NIC is more like putting a Chevy motor in a Ferrari, tweaking its exhaust, and pricing it as a Ferrari because the driver is bound by speed limits outside of the manufacturers control anyway.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by OvRiDe
