Killer Wireless-N 1103 Review: Can Qualcomm Take On Centrino?
-
Page 1:Killer Wireless: Is It Able To Usurp Intel's Centrino?
-
Page 2:Killer Wireless-N 1103: Nebulous Claims To Superiority
-
Page 3:What And How We Tested
-
Page 4:Benchmark Results: 2.4 GHz Transfer Tests
-
Page 5:Benchmark Results: 5.0 GHz Transfer Tests
-
Page 6:Benchmark Results: PerformanceTest, 2.4 GHZ
-
Page 7:Benchmark Results: PerformanceTest, 5.0 GHz
-
Page 8:Benchmark Results: GaNE, 2.4 GHz
-
Page 9:Benchmark Results: GaNE, 5.0 GHz
-
Page 10:Where Does Qualcomm's Hardware Make Sense?
Benchmark Results: PerformanceTest, 2.4 GHZ
Now we can peek under the hood and see what’s really going on with these adapter connections. There are a lot of different ways to compare this data, so bear with us as we try to illustrate a few things.
Curious, huh? In same-room conditions, looking at 2.4 GHz TCP traffic, the Killer adapter easily overleaps its competitors, but once we add in obstructions and distance, Intel leaps ahead. Now, keep the decimal places in mind and watch that x-axis scale. By the time we reach Location 3, all three adapters are barely passing bits. Intel is the top dog in a race of two-legged canines here. Also note that, predictably, 16 KB block performance is usually faster than 4 KB, regardless of distance.
We don’t know why the Killer 1103 fell down on our Location 2 UDP test, but check out that Location 3 result. Maybe everybody else in the neighborhood turned off their routers at the same time for three minutes. Whatever happened, that’s some performance spike for Qualcomm. Unless the Killer component has some secret sauce for how it handles UDP traffic (doubtful given the Location 2 results), we’re a bit stumped here.
But this raises an important point about the nature of wireless testing and how immensely variable it can be at any given time.
A first look at Cisco’s 2.4 GHz TCP throughput illustrates very well the increasing havoc that distance and obstructions can wreak on throughput. Keep in mind that an ideal chart would look like a flat line at the top of the graph. Location 1 is decent in that we get a fairly even average (yellow line) with no major spikes or troughs. Location 2 gives more cause for worry, as performance steadily declines starting about one-third into the test. This might be due to ambient conditions and have little to do with Cisco’s design. Location 3 shows serious pain, in which the connection is only able to stay alive through occasional gasps. As you can see, barring those eight or nine blips of data transfer, Cisco’s Location 3 throughput is essentially dead.
When we compare different adapters in the same location, we achieve an even deeper level of insight. Cisco swings up from a lower performance zone into one of higher performance, although we still see multiple sharp troughs. Intel maintains a flat average, but look at the range of its throughput swings compared to Qualcomm. In this particular instance, Intel would be the better choice for, say, file transfers because it’s average throughput is considerably higher than the Killer part. However, if we were streaming a 5 MB/s video feed, we would definitely opt for the Qualcomm because, unlike the Intel 6300, it maintains a smooth, steady rate well above our throughput needs without suffering those momentary troughs that cause dropped frames.
- Killer Wireless: Is It Able To Usurp Intel's Centrino?
- Killer Wireless-N 1103: Nebulous Claims To Superiority
- What And How We Tested
- Benchmark Results: 2.4 GHz Transfer Tests
- Benchmark Results: 5.0 GHz Transfer Tests
- Benchmark Results: PerformanceTest, 2.4 GHZ
- Benchmark Results: PerformanceTest, 5.0 GHz
- Benchmark Results: GaNE, 2.4 GHz
- Benchmark Results: GaNE, 5.0 GHz
- Where Does Qualcomm's Hardware Make Sense?
I still think I will be waiting for 802.11ac before upgrading from G though.
Thanks for this nice article.
I own an Alienware M17xR3, with the Killer 1103.
Upon installation, the driver was causing me issues (nothing big tho), and I decided to follow a forum recommendation and install the Atheros Osprey driver instead of Killer's.
It seems the two card are identical apart from the name on it. (Maybe I am misleaded)
It could be interesting to see if the Killer 1103 gets any improvement using the Killer driver vs. the vanilla Atheros drivers, and see if "years of working with the windows tcp stack" pays off. Or if your performance improvement is due to a good, but still normal card.
Indeed, it is an issue. I ended up wiring the house through the HVAC ducts, which is a terrible idea (breaks all sorts of building codes), but better than drilling holes all throughout the house only to move to wireless within the next 5-10 years.
http://www.amazon.com/Express-Wireless-Adapter-Antennas-miniPCI-E/dp/B005JTEREW
Most folks are running their wireless through several partitioned walls and 20'~30'. The key variable is what's in the walls and how much interference you're running across.
I our current and new house we have a centralized switch and CAT-6 distribution, PowerLine, and (2) Access Points 802.11a/b/g/n. That said, there's NO FRIGGING way I'm going to transfer a 2GB file through the air even though I 'can' -- Flash Drive or NIC. In our house every work area, TV, and bedroom has wired CAT-6 so the majority of WiFi is for our Phones and tablets (e.g. iPhone & iPad).
Further, IF you're using any form of wireless for a Desktop you need to run to the store and either use CAT-5e/6 as your first choice and/or $60~$110 and get a pair of PowerLine. Some of the new Router/Switches/WiFi adapters are including PowerLine built-in.
Lastly, very few Notebooks have the option to accept a half-mini PCIe Card.
3.63GB EXE - 4:06s | 3905548288 Bytes | 15.14MB/s
2.14GB ZIP - 2:23.8s | 2306882779 Bytes | 15.30 MB/s
These are just Drag and Drop via Explorer.
While I appreciate and sympathize with the remark about plaster walls, the bolded statement is just flat out wrong. Half height cards are the standard now. Intel does not even offer the 6200 or 6300 cards in full height
If you want high speed, get 500Mb power line. It will beat out the wireless easily, unless you have some serious problem with your electrical wiring.
DD-WRT is the answer there. It slaughters the stock firmware in all routers. Tomato does too.
Even my four year old Gateway M-1624 has TWO half-mini PCIe card slots for wireless cards and such. Most notebook computers nowadays have at least one such slot. In fact, almost all modern notebook computers have at least one such slot. Many have more than one.
I can't help but think of the connection to the PC. 9MB/s just screams FastEthernet. I could understand DD-WRT contributing to a 10% or even 20% increase in perfomance, but we are talking a 60% to 70% difference in performance.
I have both X58's and an X79 with 6-core CPUs and an HP EliteBook Mobile Workstation, but my no means is any of that 'typical' nor does it by any stretch of the imagination represent the Majority. Operative word Majority.
Most Notebook's either have their WiFi (or other forms of wireless) - Integrated or Non-User replaceable or accessible.
Sure, 'some' Notebooks have ALL sorts of options and user configurable add-ons. Again, the majority simply do not.