Intel NIC (Network interface controller) vs Killer E2200

[MartinNixon0422]

Well, first of all, I m a gamer!!!
just wondering the different between Intel Ethernet vs killer Ethernet
MSI and Giga says Killer is better for gaming, and live stream, and they did show the pic of it
(well, I remember I saw it somewherer....but cant find the pic...)

anyway, what's you guys think??

 

[Mussels]

killer NIC's usually dont do shit. they're no better than any other, they were just bundled with QoS software that could solve internet lag problems if the cause was something like torrents on your PC by sending the game packets first.

 

[cadaveca]

killer NIC's usually dont do shit. they're no better than any other, they were just bundled with QoS software that could solve internet lag problems if the cause was something like torrents on your PC by sending the game packets first.

And what then makes Intel better?

I mean, I agree, it's just the bundled software. And the KillerNic stuff seems a bit better than CFOS depending on your use and how you set it up. Because technically ,that's what we'd really be comparing...CFOS vs KillerNic software. Proprietary vs 3rd party.

 

[WalterHughes1986]

http://www.qca.qualcomm.com/products/killer-technology/solutions/embedded-ethernet/
I think Killer e2200 is similar with intel, but they create a software for gaming monitor control
kind help manage the gaming rig ~

 

[Mussels]

And what then makes Intel better?

I mean, I agree, it's just the bundled software. And the KillerNic stuff seems a bit better than CFOS depending on your use and how you set it up. Because technically ,that's what we'd really be comparing...CFOS vs KillerNic software. Proprietary vs 3rd party.

what makes the intel better? leaner, more stable drivers and a few decades more experience making network cards


and because its software, its useless if the cause of lag is outside your PC. like another PC torrenting, or lag from your ISP or another player.

 

[brandonwh64]

I did a test with a standard intel gigabit nic card and a Killer nic. After countless ping tests, gaming sessions, and lan speed tests our results showed they do not offer anything more than a cool name. Tested off a 500MB Symmetrical connection.

 

[cadaveca]

what makes the intel better? leaner, more stable drivers and a few decades more experience making network cards


and because its software, its useless if the cause of lag is outside your PC. like another PC torrenting, or lag from your ISP or another player.

It's less CPU utilization that gives Intel the edge, really. That was why KillerNics came on separate cards...as did older Intel ones... However, not all Intel controllers are good...just nearly every single one.

But many systems don't have a shortage of CPU power, so this is less and less important today.

Anyway, fundamentally speaking, the KillerNic controllers, as hinted above, are Qualcomm designs which are optimized for GAMING, while the Intel controllers are simply great controllers.

I did a test with a standard intel gigabit nic card and a Killer nic. After countless ping tests, gaming sessions, and lan speed tests our results showed they do not offer anything more than a cool name. Tested off a 500MB Symmetrical connection.

The KillerNic E2205 is pretty much comparable to Intel controllers now, and software does allow KillerNic E2205 to be better at times, but I still feel that the Intel controllers have a better physical design.

 

[Easy Rhino]

The general consensus is that it is not worth the money.

 

[cadaveca]

The general consensus is that it is not worth the money.

Sure, but that general consensus is based upon older controllers, on add-in cards, not the current E2205 that is built into GAMING motherboards from nearly every brand. And nearly every brand will have results showing that for GAMING, KillerNic is better. I'm not saying that is my own opinion... it just is what it is.

Saying KIllerNic sucks, because of an older controller... and not the E2205 that is commonly used today... well... You can do that, sure.

 

[EarthDog]

A while ago, they did tests. The Intel NIC came out on top. But not by much at all. Have they updated those tests to show the Killer NIC now comes out better? It was not in the past.

About the only thing the Killer NIC offers over the Intel NIC is software control to prioritize traffic. If the Intel NIC has that now, its a toss up. Unless you are a 'pro gamer' one wouldn't notice a difference anyway.

 

[cadaveca]

A while ago, they did tests. The Intel NIC came out on top. But not by much at all. Have they updated those tests to show the Killer NIC now comes out better? It was not in the past.

About the only thing the Killer NIC offers over the Intel NIC is software control to prioritize traffic. If the Intel NIC has that now, its a toss up. Unless you are a 'pro gamer' one wouldn't notice a difference anyway.

There are some poopy Intel controllers.

Anyway, a result from another site(not my results):

You have to list specific controller models rather than state general performance metrics with just a brand name, IMHO, so take this result with a grain of salt. You could also say that this might be highly workload dependent. At the same time, if you are someone that STREAMS their gameplay, the kIllerNic software will do you a favor, for sure. At the same time, boards with Intel NICs that have the CFOS software can do the same...but you need to know how to tune the software, FIRST.

 

[brandonwh64]

What a lot of people do not realize is that it takes data going from point A to point B and you can have all the best equipment in the world at point A but have weak point along the path to point B and it still ends in the same result.

If I wanted something to prioritize my traffic I would just buy a nice firewall/router or service switch.

 

[cadaveca]

What a lot of people do not realize is that it takes data going from point A to point B and you can have all the best equipment in the world at point A but have weak point along the path to point B and it still ends in the same result.

I agree, and this should be a "given fact", but whatevs. I'm just relaying the info that disagrees with your opinion about KillerNic in general that has some companies saying otherwise, not my own opinion.

Personally, I feel the KillerNIC software is killer as a gamer who streams content live while playing. I'm also typing this now from a 4W Bay-Trail Celeron CPU, in a system that uses 25W at max. Dedicated hardware for nearly everything is very much old-school tech.

 

[brandonwh64]

I wouldn't discrediting the people that did the testing you posted, I am just merely mentioning our testing here at work. We did not test it with realtek nics only intel gigx.

 

[cadaveca]

I wouldn't discrediting the people that did the testing you posted, I am just merely mentioning our testing here at work. We did not test it with realtek nics only intel gigx.

Heh, I think you're taking this a bit too seriously.

 

[brandonwh64]

Heh, I think you're taking this a bit too seriously.

how?

 

[cadaveca]

how?

I love you. Oh hey, I finally am using that 250 CFM fan. That thing is just stupid.


Anyway, as you said, for most instances, the bottlenecks are really out there in the net, not in your system. The actual differences for most users between Intel i217V and KillerNIC E2205 is in single-digit percentiles in my testing, and both trade blows on workloads.

 

[brandonwh64]

I love you. Oh hey, I finally am using that 250 CFM fan. That thing is just stupid.

That fan was my hero. I have two more but I think they are 92MM and they will surely chop your finger off if you aint careful. LOLOLOLOL

 

[Hilux SSRG]

Well, first of all, I m a gamer!!!
just wondering the different between Intel Ethernet vs killer Ethernet
MSI and Giga says Killer is better for gaming, and live stream, and they did show the pic of it
(well, I remember I saw it somewherer....but cant find the pic...)

anyway, what's you guys think??

The Intel one is more dependable and consistent with testing over the years.

Recently the Killer "bigfoot" series gave me trouble on the x79 platform. Glad the mobo manufacturer offered both Intel and Killer LAN options.



Cadeveca, a slide from MSI's marketing is not really unbiased testing.

There are some poopy Intel controllers.

Anyway, a result from another site(not my results):

/QUOTE]

A slide from MSI's marketing is not really unbiased testing.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Sure, but that general consensus is based upon older controllers, on add-in cards, not the current E2205 that is built into GAMING motherboards from nearly every brand. And nearly every brand will have results showing that for GAMING, KillerNic is better. I'm not saying that is my own opinion... it just is what it is.

Saying KIllerNic sucks, because of an older controller... and not the E2205 that is commonly used today... well... You can do that, sure.

KillerNIC may be better when built into the motherboard but the general consensus is still that it is not worth the money.

 

[cadaveca]

KillerNIC may be better when built into the motherboard but the general consensus is still that it is not worth the money.

They don't make add-in KIllerNICs any more... except one that is supposed to be WiFi/Wired, but I haven't seen that out in the wild as of yet.

 

[95Viper]

Here is a test from a well known company that refutes the others and is recent ( 11 Apr, 2014 ) : Tried And Tested: Why Intel Ethernet Is Still Better For Gaming.

And, here is one quote from the review:

Online game packets are usually less than 256 bytes (small). Here, Intel Ethernet shows up to 2x performance advantage over a direct ‘gaming’ competitor on small packet sizes. This proves that while ‘course’ testing appears equal, a deeper analysis shows Intel Gigabit Ethernet is clearly better for gaming.

So, it all depends on either, who you believe or your own testing.

 

[cadaveca]

Cadaveca, a slide from MSI's marketing is not really unbiased testing.

I know, but they are quoting another site. And just so we are clear, I'm not taking any sides here as to who is better... I think each has it's own pros and cons. I like the Killer software, though, no problems saying it's better...because Intel doesn't offer QoS software directly.

 

[remixedcat]

Intel is often preffered for servers because they are more compatible with hypervizors like VMware and hyper-v.

Also generally more stable drivers.

Oh and its always best to just use your router's QoS.

 

[Fourstaff]

Suppose I am playing an online game while torrenting in the background. Will KillerNIC perform better than the competition in such scenario? I have not seen anyone testing under such scenario, perhaps I have not read all reviews.