EVGA Killer Xeno Pro: The Impact of Network Offloading
by Derek Wilson on July 3, 2009 4:20 AM EST- Posted in
- Networking
Final Words
The approach and design of the Killer Xeno Pro are more efficient than standard network cards. Bypassing the windows networking stack will reduce load on the operating system and the CPU. Bypassing the CPU and OS when sending and receiving audio using supported voice chat software is a cool thing as well. Built in hardware prioritization (QoS) and bandwidth throttling are also interesting features.
But the bottom line is that none of this makes a significant difference in the gaming experience on modern PCs when paired with current games, nor does it offer an advantage over alternatives.
The biggest advantage the Killer Xeno Pro showed was in it's ability to prioritize games over other applications. At the same time, this only works for the one PC that is doing both downloading and gaming. If there are other computers on the network at all, it would be much more cost effective to purchase a router that can handle QoS and bandwidth control on a per application (or per port) basis. Using a router to handle this means that I can download huge massive files on one PC and my wife can play Team Fortress 2 on another without experiencing problems.
I could even play a game on the computer that I'm downloading with in that case, but it remains our recommendation to simply not download in the background while playing a game. More than just networking is affected by downloading in the background, as the harddrive is constantly being hit and this can be a significant source of loading pauses and hitching in and of itself.
If you don't want to spend any money, most torrent and other downloading applications come with built in (or add on) bandwidth controls that can be employed to achieve the same end as hardware QoS. Hardware QoS and bandwidth control are nice features to have, but they are not worth $120.
The voice chat acceleration could be beneficial when gaming while chatting, but currently most applications are not supported. Teamspeak, Ventrillo, and Skype all need out of the box support at the very least. At best we would want all games with built in voice chat to support this as well, but that isn't likely unless and until the hardware becomes more popular. In addition to application support, voice chat doesn't take up a significant amount of CPU time and the most significant impact on latency is still going to be the network as a whole.
TCP/IP offload is a better way to do things, but the benefit to the gamer just isn't there. Network load just isn't high enough to really take advantage of the hardware in modern games. But it isn't like the potential benefit of an NPU can never be realized: it starts to matter in the server space where technology like this was originally targeted. Offloading the CPU of a heavily loaded database server can definitely leave more CPU time for processing tasks and can increase network responsiveness. This just isn't what the Killer Xeno Pro is targeted towards.
So, when you've already got an on-board network card, is the Killer Xeno Pro worth $120-$130 USD? When that money can be put into either CPU or graphics, the answer just has to be no. At the same price as a Radeon HD 4850, there is just no reason not to look toward upgrading older graphics solutions. If you've already got something on the level of the 4850, then that money should be saved for your next graphics hardware upgrade where it will still have a higher impact on performance and experience.
For professional gamers and those obsessed with twitch shooters, for the gamers running 1280x800 on a 30" panel with most of the settings turned down on the highest end hardware money can buy, for those who are always after whatever option might give them the slightest edge: the Killer Xeno Pro might be for you. But even then, this hardware is the icing on the cake rather than a core ingredient.
What the geek inside me really wants to see is more general access to the hardware. This is, after all, a PC on a PCIe card. If Bigfoot gave us deeper access to the hardware, we might find more (even if equally niche) uses for an extra PowerPC processor in our computers. Additionally, to satisfy our intellectual curiosity, we would like to get our hands on a couple more of these cards in order to do some LAN testing using combinations of standard and Killer network cards to see how overall network performance is changed (if at all) especially with respect to voice chat performance.
Beyond this, there is a caveat. Perhaps, as broadband becomes more pervasive, game developers might want to push networking. At some point in time, games may need the PCs they run on to handle a much larger volume of network traffic in order to function well. Right now, game developers are targeting current bandwidths using current commodity network hardware. Games can't be designed to require higher performance networking gear because consumers either don't have access to high speed internet or they don't have a network card that does TCP/IP offload (among other things).
At some point down the line, something like the Killer Xeno Pro might become a significant requirement. But right now, for the vast majority of gamers out there, our advice is to save your money.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
121 Comments
View All Comments
DerekWilson - Friday, July 3, 2009 - link
So ... I looked it up ... (search for something like wow port usage or wow port forwarding or something)It seems that everywhere I look, the internet tells me that WoW uses TCP over port 3724 ...
I looked up EVE and it was a little harder to find info on -- but it looks to me like it uses both TCP and UDP for different things. Here's what I saw:
UDP ports 26001, 3478 and 5060-5062
TCP ports 26000, 80 and 443
EVE definitely uses UDP for it's voice support and it seems like it requires both UDP and TCP ports for other game data.
...
Additionally, the Killer Xeno Pro software only detects applications that use UDP and not applications that use only TCP ... so it makes sense that if it cannot detect WoW that WoW would be using TCP ... and if it detects EVE then EVE must be using UDP for at least something.
If you still think WoW uses UDP and EVE uses only TCP then please post links to your sources ...
mesiah - Saturday, July 4, 2009 - link
Strange how the wise ass know it alls disappear right after you hit them with facts. Its one thing for someone to come in and inform you that you got a point wrong in your review and back it up with sources. Its another for you trolls to show up, tout your epic knowledge you got from "the dude that made this shit." and then spit on the people that took the time to do the review. First, what is the point of reading the article if the only reason you are here is to give the writer grief? And second, If you thought you could do a better job maybe you should write you own articles so we can come and piss in your cheerios.Flawed or not, thanks for taking the time to do the article Derek and show us some real world numbers.
crimson117 - Friday, July 3, 2009 - link
I looked it up too!WoW similarly uses TCP for gameplay and UDP for voice support:
From http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=...">http://us.blizzard.com/support/article....cleId=21...
What do I need to know about ports?
Anytime your computer receives incoming data, it is sent to a "port". Your computer has many ports that can receive data, and different activities will utilize different ports. World of Warcraft & Burning Crusade use TCP port numbers 1119 and 3724 to play, and UDP port 3724 for in game Voice chat. The Blizzard Downloader, which downloads patches, also uses TCP ports 6112 and the range 6881-6999. For walkthroughs on router and firewall configuration you can use the Networking Help for the Blizzard Downloader page.
ShannonG - Saturday, January 30, 2010 - link
It is hard to believe any major MMORPG uses TCP for situational updates. Logging in, updates, billing, web, etc... sure.But for for game updates? 90% of it is real-time and redundant.
I don't play WoW, but if you routinely experience "warping" now you know why - craptastic network architecture.
A MMORPG with a well-designed network infrastructure will use a [custom] selectively-reliable UDP protocol, colloquially referred to as "RUDP".
If the card actually could/does off-load the networking stack [including firewalling et. al.] you stand to recapture 5%-10% of the CPU if it is bandwidth intensive.
Most games are not bandwidth intensive, quite the opposite; and it cannot significantly improve latency - that latency delays of the Internet will swamp the latency delays of packet delivery (ms vs us).
What this card will do is move the packet processing from whatever system bus your NIC is currently on to the ePCI bus. That's probably not a good thing either - the video card is on that bus.
Stas - Friday, July 3, 2009 - link
Given the return on the investment, I would pay $25 for this NIC at the most. Not $100+ (shit, I might as well go for an Intel dual Gigabit LAN NIC, if I'm to spend over $100).DerekWilson - Friday, July 3, 2009 - link
There is typically a baseline cost to add-in network hardware ... if you need something to put in your box, you'll probably spend at least $25-$30 just to get something equivalent to what's on most motherboards.bigboxes - Friday, July 3, 2009 - link
I just replaced my gigabit card on my file server with a new Linksys gigabit card. $30. No, my mobo only had 10/100, so I had to purchase the card. I remeber that D-Link's was $25 and Netgear was $20. The U.S. Robotics card was $15, but seeing as that was the card that just failed I tried the Linksys route.DerekWilson - Friday, July 3, 2009 - link
So maybe $20 - $30 ... :-) but still, you've got to pay something for just the PCB, the port, and the chips ... I certainly agree that for what it delivers in realized performance the $100 premium is too much for the Killer Xeno Pro ... but it is definitely more reasonable than their first offering.Shadowmage - Friday, July 3, 2009 - link
This is a horribly misleading article. The claim is that the card is better than standard networking cards, yet the author never tests the card against its competitors - add-in card NICs.Would you test a new graphics card against integrated graphics?
CptTripps - Tuesday, July 7, 2009 - link
How is it misleading? The author states that even tested against an integrated NIC there was no noticable difference. He then suggested we save our money.The "Claim" comes from the manufacturer and the result posted in the article is what I expected.