I'm a huge gamer and I found some interest in this product because this company added a 400mhz Network Porcessing Unit (NPU),64mb of memory, a really sick looking heatsink (with cool leds to light it up during use)to their nic card and they say that it's able to give around a 10% performance gain in games (most notably F.E.A.R.).
Does anyone know if this actually works and does anyone here find it worth the $280 pricetag?
Please read the article and understand the product before posting in this thread. I don't trust ign but they have an interesting review.
this sounds crazy. makes sense, once you think about it, because its like a soundcard in taking work from the processor. but, my first reaction was, "?!"
the card looks amazing. it truly does. the only problem for ME was, i didn't take the time to try to comprehend the data that ign gave. i likes me some nice pretty bars, like THG does it. anybody care to put those figures into words?
i, as a very frugal gamer, can't see myself getting one. but, i'm sure people with an ageia physx card will hop right on this bandwagon.
They require a game that specifically supports them to show any sort of performance gain and even that is minimal. ATI/Nvidia have there own physx demos...ATI's by far the coolest and most impressive.
(DONT CONTINUE THIS THREAD WITH PHYSX, PLEASE STICK TO SUBJECT)
This advantage goes to this Killer nic card because unlike ageia physx this card doesnt require game support, in fact it doesnt require anything more than broadband which means every game will gain some kind of performance boost....question is...to what degree?
Looks like a huge waste of money to me. If you actually look at how much data a typical game sends out over the network, then you'd see why this is so unnecessary. From my experience BF2 uses maybe 15-20kB/s, which is about 0.15mbps, or 1/623rd of the theoretical throughput of a 100mbps NIC.
If you had a slow PC, then I could see this *maybe* helping a small bit by saving a couple clock cycles, but this wouldn't apply since the product is targeted at hardcore gamers.
Thanks to the Killer NIC's traffic prioritization capabilities, users will conceivably be able to play the most demanding games while using extra bandwidth for BitTorrent, without any performance hits due to BitTorrent CPU load or hard drive access.
They're completely missing the point here. BitTorrent doesn't slow down gaming because it's sucking up CPU cycles or choking your HDD, it's because BitTorrent is placing huge strain on your Internet connection. Having a $300 NIC doesn't change the capabilities of your connection, so you'll still get just as much lag. If you scale down the BT bandwidth then your BT downloads will just go slowly, but you can do the same thing without this NIC. Speaking of traffic prioritization, that's not something you want to do on your PC anyway. You're better off doing that at your router.
Looking at the results from the article, they are indeed impressive but you could probably duplicate them with any quality NIC. Integrated NICs are made as cheaply as possible. They're designed to "work", and that's it. If you took another NIC designed to minimize CPU utilization like an Intel Pro1000 server adapter I bet it'd yield similar results. As they mentioned, the article is flawed in the sense that it doesn't offer any other comparison points and the other variables such as transient network conditions, etc can't be duplicated between tests.