# Intel NIC (Network interface controller) vs Killer E2200



## MartinNixon0422 (May 8, 2014)

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 (May 8, 2014)

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 (May 8, 2014)

Mussels said:


> 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 (May 8, 2014)

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 (May 8, 2014)

cadaveca said:


> 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 (May 8, 2014)

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 (May 8, 2014)

Mussels said:


> 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.



brandonwh64 said:


> 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 (May 8, 2014)

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


----------



## cadaveca (May 8, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> 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 (May 8, 2014)

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 (May 8, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> 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 (May 8, 2014)

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 (May 8, 2014)

brandonwh64 said:


> 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 (May 8, 2014)

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 (May 8, 2014)

brandonwh64 said:


> 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 (May 8, 2014)

cadaveca said:


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



how?


----------



## cadaveca (May 8, 2014)

brandonwh64 said:


> 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 (May 8, 2014)

cadaveca said:


> 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 (May 8, 2014)

MartinNixon0422 said:


> 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...)
> ...




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.



cadaveca said:


> There are some poopy Intel controllers.
> 
> Anyway, a result from another site(not my results):
> 
> ...


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 8, 2014)

cadaveca said:


> 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 (May 8, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> 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 (May 8, 2014)

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 (May 8, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> 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 (May 8, 2014)

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 (May 9, 2014)

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.


----------



## remixedcat (May 9, 2014)

I'd love to do a review on it but since they don'tdo aadd on cards anymore it would be tough


----------



## Aquinus (May 9, 2014)

I would like to see how the fancy 8 core Atom C2750 and it's 4 ethernet PHYs built into the CPU would fare up against other adapters. I wouldn't be surprised if the SoC approach for high-speed networking would be comparable to what's available as an add-on card.


----------



## cadaveca (May 9, 2014)

Fourstaff said:


> 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.


KillerNic will help you, CFOS on Intel can too, but requires manual settings.

KillerNIC is ready for torrents and gaming..or streaming and gaming...without you having to do anything. That's why I like them.

Intel is more capable, and can offer the same if not better with CFOS...but you have to set it up manually.


----------



## R-T-B (May 9, 2014)

> It's less CPU utilization that gives Intel the edge, really.



No.  Unless I'm wrong, the killer NICS implement the complete TCP/IP stack in hardware as opposed to a software stack in windows, theoretically lowering CPU usage vs any other NIC.

However, unless you are running a 486, this won't be noticable.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 9, 2014)

brandonwh64 said:


> 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.



Yeah copper in ground or aerial- how old or new that copper is. Other interference...


----------



## Mussels (May 9, 2014)

cadaveca said:


> There are some poopy Intel controllers.
> 
> Anyway, a result from another site(not my results):
> 
> ...





^ those tests are done while hammering the network on that PC with torrents and file transfers. again with the fact this ONLY applies if the cause of high ping and lag was on the PC with the killer NIC card - if your NAS was causing the issues uploading to your brother while he was streaming video over 4G to his phone, or your sister was uploading selfies to facebook... well, you're screwed.




Fourstaff said:


> 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.



yes, but its the software that does it, not the hardware. it will also only work if the torrents are being ran from that specific PC, as i stated above. you need to be running unusual amounts of traffic to run into a situation it helps.


----------



## cadaveca (May 9, 2014)

Mussels said:


> ^ those tests are done while hammering the network on that PC with torrents and file transfers. again with the fact this ONLY applies if the cause of high ping and lag was on the PC with the killer NIC card - if your NAS was causing the issues uploading to your brother while he was streaming video over 4G to his phone, or your sister was uploading selfies to facebook... well, you're screwed.



You bet. And an Intel NIC isn't going to fix that.  But...should all those device run CFOS software...it might. It's at least intelligent enough to let you prioritize network traffic across all your PCs, so you can make sure your traffic on your PC goes through and everyone else gets the problems.


----------



## vega22 (May 9, 2014)

Fourstaff said:


> 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.



yes.

out the box it is setup to prioritize games above torrent clients.

i love this debate me, tends to be lots of people saying they are great i have one. or they are shit, i heard.

i got one for a laugh to see what it was like and in some games the difference is night and day (without torrents running). i would hate to play bf52 or cod75 without it. some games i can't tell the differnce like cs or tf at all.

with torrents running, well some games you can't even stay connected, with the killer you do not even know it is running.

if you have 1 box for all your needs then the killer is almost a no brainer, if you have a games machine and a torrent box then i would only if you played some laggy console ports


----------



## OneMoar (May 15, 2014)

QoS has no place on residential connections killernic's are overpriced junk in my book


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 14, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> QoS has no place on residential connections killernic's are overpriced junk in my book



QoS definitly does on residential connections. Why should someone's netflix binge get in the way of work or there might be a steam download making my streaming buffer like mad or something...

QoS is best served being put on the router and not the adapter.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 14, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> QoS has no place on residential connections killernic's are overpriced junk in my book


I agree with @remixedcat one this one. QoS definitely has a place in a residential network in some cases but usually only on the gateway itself.

If you have VoIP for your voice communication you'll want QoS to prioritize VoIP packets. Unlike a regular download, VoIP and other streaming data services usually demand a fairly low level of latency. As a result, QoS can be used to ensure that VoIP gets priority over other tasks. It's just a matter of figuring out what traffic is important because I don't want to be dropped from a call because my wife decided to start up a torrent at the same time that my daughter is watching some 1080p video off Netflix. While I doubt this would impact my 119Mbit connection, it would have back when I had 25Mbit down instead.

So there are really two cases where QoS is important. When an application requires at least some level of bandwidth and when an application requires at least some maximum level of latency. All in all, there are reasons why traffic would need to be QoS'ed or shaped. They're not as common in residential configurations, but they might be required depending on what it is being used for and the performance/reliability that they customer is getting.

A great example is VoIP over satellite internet. Satellite already has a really high latency, almost too high for VoIP out of the box, so you need to make sure that those packets are the first things to go out when they come in and to not wait on other things. So while QoS might not be important for *you* it might mean a whole lot more to someone else who might actually need it.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 14, 2014)

My Meraki Z1 takes QoS a step further and even defines by user group policies that are configured to seperate VLANs so each VLAN has unique traffic shaping and fitlering policies as well!!





I can also do it by user as well thru the clients status screen. I can pick any user on the client status screen and give them their seperate policy/qos/everything.


----------



## Jetster (Sep 14, 2014)

Normally I would always use the Intel nic but this time Ive ben using the Killer E2200. I have no complaints at all


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 14, 2014)

Jetster said:


> Normally I would always use the Intel nic but this time Ive ben using the Killer E2200. I have no complaints at all




try it with hyper-v or vmware and let us know if it works!!!


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 14, 2014)

remixedcat said:


> My Meraki Z1 takes QoS a step further and even defines by user group policies that are configured to seperate VLANs so each VLAN has unique traffic shaping and fitlering policies as well!!
> 
> View attachment 59140
> 
> ...


While Meraki makes this easy, this is all achievable with a Linux router as long as you're willing to get your hands (very) dirty in the terminal which is what I do. Also my Gateway has two RTL8111 and two Intel 82571EBs and you wouldn't notice a difference between the two. In fact using just the Realtek adapters versus just the Intel adapters doesn't feel any different. Just felt that was worth mentioning.

If you're on Cable internet, the delay from HFC alone makes any benefit of the adapter worthless IMHO as well. It seems to me to be a normal dedicated NIC with some performance customizations in the driver. To me, that's pretty lame and isn't a good selling point when an adapter for a fraction of the price could give you two or four ports instead of one and the same thing.

If you really want to invest in more bandwidth, go 10Gbps on CAT6. If you need less latency locally, then put fiber between you and your gateway... and as many have noticed, real solutions for faster networking are expensive, not just a hundred USD but hundreds of USD.

With that all said, one of these days, I want to run 10Gbps in my house. The goal would be to get my RAID off my tower while preserving bandwidth and latency, not just 130MB/s (~1Gbps) via iSCSI or something. That would be the second step, first would be a RAID card, two more 1TB drives to make RAID-6 a little more feasible. 

Also for Ethernet, I would suspect something like the Intel X540-T1 would be the optimal choice. Not only is it top of the line, you're ready for 10Gbps when you want it, but once again, over 300 USD later, it's what you get.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 14, 2014)

remixedcat said:


> QoS definitly does on residential connections. Why should someone's netflix binge get in the way of work or there might be a steam download making my streaming buffer like mad or something...
> 
> QoS is best served being put on the router and not the adapter.



it helps prioritize who needs the most bandwidth at that time


----------



## Mussels (Sep 14, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> I agree with @remixedcat one this one. QoS definitely has a place in a residential network in some cases but usually only on the gateway itself.
> 
> If you have VoIP for your voice communication you'll want QoS to prioritize VoIP packets. Unlike a regular download, VoIP and other streaming data services usually demand a fairly low level of latency. As a result, QoS can be used to ensure that VoIP gets priority over other tasks. It's just a matter of figuring out what traffic is important because I don't want to be dropped from a call because my wife decided to start up a torrent at the same time that my daughter is watching some 1080p video off Netflix. While I doubt this would impact my 119Mbit connection, it would have back when I had 25Mbit down instead.
> 
> ...




i got 6Mb down, 0.8Mb up - so trust me, i go a little beyond QoS and into full bandwidth management on my router, or simply uploading a photo will cause lag spikes for voip and gaming.






DHCP assigns them pre-set IP's by me, with guests ending up in that speed crippled pool.

(missus stuff, my stuff, guests/unassigned)


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 14, 2014)

I only got 3Mbps upload speed but 50Mbps down speed so I got to QoS as well.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 14, 2014)

QOS requires a "fast" connection the avg 20/2 or even 25/5 cable line is not gonna work QOS has to much overhead that 10% you need to reserve for QOS to be effective will mean the difference between a smooth vidoe/gaming experience and in most causes will have negative effects for everyone  now if you have 100Mbit/s fiber connection thats another story 
edit: god dam it mussels beat me to it
and yes I am aware with a ton of fiddling around with limits and the scheduler you can make it work but its just not worth it for the tiny bit of gain residential != datacenter


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 14, 2014)

The "overhead" will depend on how fast the router's CPU speed is.

Mines 600Mhz in my Z1 and if you go to http://wikidevi.com you can find out the processor speeds/ram/soc/etc of your router!
My router: https://wikidevi.com/wiki/Meraki_Z1  My APs: https://wikidevi.com/wiki/Aruba_Networks_RAP-109 / https://wikidevi.com/wiki/Meraki_MR12

BTW I only throttle my guests down and anyone else connected to VLAN3 my main VLAN has no throttling.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 14, 2014)

remixedcat said:


> The "overhead" will depend on how fast the router's CPU speed is.
> 
> Mines 600Mhz in my Z1 and if you go to http://wikidevi.com you can find out the processor speeds/ram/soc/etc of your router!
> My router: https://wikidevi.com/wiki/Meraki_Z1  My APs: https://wikidevi.com/wiki/Aruba_Networks_RAP-109 / https://wikidevi.com/wiki/Meraki_MR12
> ...


the overhead I was talking about was the amount of bandwidth you need to reserve on the WAN side to ensure it works correctly
if I have a 20MBit connection and I take 10% away from that now its only 18Mbit witch if you have multiple high bandwidth users such as video streaming combined with gaming is BADDD mojo 
btw my `cpu` on my router is running at 662mhz


----------



## Mussels (Sep 14, 2014)

it was windows XP that had that 10% overhead, and it wasnt always on like people thought. lots of common misconceptions there.


and yeah router processing power matters a lot, a cheap router can have LAN transfers can slow down WAN (internet) traffic, especially with wifi.


my budget router, since the kitty above linked to the site.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 14, 2014)

Mussels said:


> it was windows XP that had that 10% overhead, and it wasnt always on like people thought. lots of common misconceptions there.
> 
> 
> and yeah router processing power matters a lot, a cheap router can have LAN transfers can slow down WAN (internet) traffic, especially with wifi.


no when you setup QOS you are asked to input your line speeds and because QOS needs some wiggle room you need to input a speed roughly 10 to 20% lower then your measured max on speed test or QOS will not work correctly its CRITCAL that you do so meaning that your connection is now capped to about 90% of its functional-max this is universal and applies to every QOS implementation ever!
if you are on a fiber or a docsis 3 connection that ten-precent lose in pure throughput ins't a issue 
now if you have a terrible up load speed like most residential connections then that 10% is gonna kill you 

witch if your limits aren't set correctly @Mussles is why you are getting lag because you are allocating more bandwidth then you really have


----------



## Mussels (Sep 14, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> no when you setup QOS you are asked to input your line speeds and because QOS needs some wiggle room you need to input a speed roughly 10 to 20% lower then your measured max on speed test or QOS will not work correctly its CRITCAL that you do so meaning that your connection is now capped to about 90% of its functional-max this is universal and applies to every QOS implementation ever!
> if you are on a fiber or a docsis 3 connection that ten-precent lose in pure throughput ins't a issue
> 
> witch if your limits aren't set correctly @Mussles is why you are getting lag because you are allocating more bandwidth then you really have




mines set fine, the lag is if i dont have limits set. i account for overheads and usage, but mine is not QoS - its bandwidth allocation, so the 10% reservation does not apply.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 14, 2014)

Mussels said:


> it was windows XP that had that 10% overhead, and it wasnt always on like people thought. lots of common misconceptions there.
> 
> 
> and yeah router processing power matters a lot, a cheap router can have LAN transfers can slow down WAN (internet) traffic, especially with wifi.
> ...




Ha! Your's has the same SoC as my Z1!!! LOL That's creepy (lower FLA count tho


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 14, 2014)

mines bigger


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 14, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> mines bigger


My gateway has a Phenom II 960T in it and I add on to it using PCI-E and there are more than enough slots to fill. If we're *really* going to play the bigger game... 

```
$ uname -a
Linux Sophia 3.2.0-4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.2.60-1+deb7u3 x86_64 GNU/Linux
$ cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep name
model name      : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 960T Processor
model name      : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 960T Processor
model name      : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 960T Processor
model name      : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 960T Processor
$ lspci | grep Ethernet
02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8111/8168B PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet controller (rev 03)
03:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8111/8168B PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet controller (rev 03)
05:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 06)
05:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 06)
$ free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          3963        448       3515          0         81        187
-/+ buffers/cache:        179       3784
Swap:         3839          0       3839
$ uptime
11:36:16 up 14:31,  1 user,  load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.05
```

My uptime would be better but I lost power for several hours last night and again a week earlier while I was on vacation up north.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 14, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> My gateway has a Phenom II 960T in it and I add on to it using PCI-E and there are more than enough slots to fill. If we're *really* going to play the bigger game...
> 
> ```
> $ uname -a
> ...


thats cheating


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 14, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> thats cheating


How is it cheating? I dedicated the hardware to doing a task (much like you chose a residential router,) and I configured it myself IPTables and all. If me using my experience is cheating, I think we're all in trouble.  I do still have an E4200 serving up the Wi-Fi and switching my TV, and gaming console but the E4200 can't do a fraction that the full blow tower can do. So it's not a matter of cheating, it's a matter of making the box do what I needed it to do. Also I did it not because the E4200 was too slow, but that it couldn't do enough.

If someone came and showed me their fiber or 10Gbps network at home, I would call it fair game.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 14, 2014)

unless its also a media server/NAS its super overkill


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 14, 2014)

Mine is traffic shaping


OneMoar said:


> unless its also a media server/NAS its super overkill



No.  I got a Meraki Z1, for my main router, Two Aruba RAP109 APs, Meraki MR12 AP, Dlink DAP2690 AP for my enterprise wireless + a d-link DGS-1210-10P manged switch + an Amped RTA15, R20000G, Netgear WNDR4500V2, WGR614 for consumer grade routers/wireless, a Netgear homeplug (too lazy to look lol) and An Amped PLA2 homeplug and a buncha various adapters for my network hardware stuff and I'm sure I missed something.. LOL.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 14, 2014)

remixedcat said:


> Mine is traffic shaping
> 
> 
> No.  I got a Meraki Z1, for my main router, Two Aruba RAP109 APs, Meraki MR12 AP, Dlink DAP2690 AP for my enterprise wireless + a d-link DGS-1210-10P manged switch + an Amped RTA15, R20000G, Netgear WNDR4500V2, WGR614 for consumer grade routers/wireless, a Netgear homeplug (too lazy to look lol) and An Amped PLA2 homeplug and a buncha various adapters for my network hardware stuff and I'm sure I missed something.. LOL.


not everbody hosts a  topsite in there basement lol
just a weee bit overkill for the context of the op ..


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 14, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> unless its also a media server/NAS its super overkill


It's a media server (miniDLNA), a Samba server, runs RAID-5 as redundancy for RAID-5 on my tower, it runs DHCP, DNS (BIND), IPTables, and PPTP. It runs transmission-daemon and I do big download on it instead of my tower (since it does have storage on that RAID-5) and has a direct connection to the internet. I also do some level of development on it but nothing huge. All in all, it's a server, NAS, and gateway all in one box. It's also capable of routing very quickly, so if the box is already running, why not use it for that as well? All in all, it works out well for me.

That's part of what I meant by "the E4200 isn't too slow [for routing], it just can't do enough," and I don't want to run a bunch of different machines for different tasks and my i7 machine doesn't stay on 24/7 and is allowed to go to sleep. Honestly, I would like to ditch the E4200 and just put PCI-E wi-fi cards in the gateway.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 14, 2014)

look guys i love the router conversation as much as the next guy with three boxes of routers because i'm a hoarder and WHAT IF ONE BREAKS, but its kinda off topic. maybe make a thread about it and we all move over there?


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 14, 2014)

Mussels said:


> look guys i love the router conversation as much as the next guy with three boxes of routers because i'm a hoarder and WHAT IF ONE BREAKS, but its kinda off topic. maybe make a thread about it and we all move over there?


Started one over here.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 9, 2015)

As this has already been necro'd can anyone explain to me how Killer nics do better than lets say the atheros chipsets they are based on? Technically my gateway from 2009 uses the same wireless N card killer used for years...


----------



## brandonwh64 (Dec 9, 2015)

Are we really comparing routers? Mines pretty big LOL


----------



## Mussels (Dec 10, 2015)

cdawall said:


> As this has already been necro'd can anyone explain to me how Killer nics do better than lets say the atheros chipsets they are based on? Technically my gateway from 2009 uses the same wireless N card killer used for years...



software tricks to prioritise certain ports/traffic over others. So it'd make your game traffic go first, torrents later.


This of course only works if that one killer network adaptor is the only device using the internet at the time, cant do shit if the lag/congestion is caused elsewhere (like at your modem)


----------



## Rhyseh (Dec 10, 2015)

Holy necro batman. Here's a recent review no idea how accurate the testing methodology is, but the results are so close that it doesn't even matter.


----------

