Bigfoot Networks Killer NIC & Killer K1 Network Cards

Test Results

Test Results

Armed with just under 200 screenshots from the 3 game titles used in our tested, we proceeded the painful task of adding the FPS and Ping details to the graphs below in order to get a clearer picture of any performance differences between the two NIC's. At the right of each graph below you will find the average value calculated from all the results.

Killer NIC CS:S FPS Results Killer NIC CS:S Ping Results

In the Counter-Strike:Source tests, the Killer NIC managed to obtain a full 9fps advantage over the onboard Marvell NIC. Judging by the graph it would also appear that the Killer NIC aided slightly more consistent frame rates too.

As for latency, the onboard Marvell NIC and Killer NIC were pretty much on a level playing field, both producing average pings of just under 16ms.

Killer NIC FEAR FPS Results Killer NIC FEAR Ping Results

F.E.A.R told pretty much the same story with the Killer NIC sporting an 8fps advantage over the onboard Marvell Yukon NIC. Latency results also came out minutely lower for the Killer NIC, showing a 1.4ms advantage.

Killer NIC Quake 4 FPS Results Killer NIC Quake 4 Ping Results

Despite the more random methods used during the Quake 4 tests, the FPS results above show almost no difference in FPS between the Killer NIC and the onboard Marvell NIC.

Once again we can see a small difference of 1.8ms between the two NIC's, however the graph seems to show less fluctuation in ping for the Killer NIC.
«Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next»

Most Recent Comments

21-03-2007, 15:50:47

Well its a sweet review. Quote

21-03-2007, 16:08:39

Great review and technology insight.

Nice one XMSQuote

21-03-2007, 16:25:41

I just looked thru the graphs and laughed at their promo stuff at the beginning. Not sure how it is an innovation?

The idea of sharing the load is ok (3years ago), but the fps test doesn't prove anything (in that it is a graph over time periods). The same with the ping graphs. Altho neither shows a significant difference

The 1ms 'gained' could be due to other factors. (avg gain or loss. 0.9ms)

The same with the fps. (avg gain. 5.6fps)

'Sharing the load' on a dual core system isn't really going to make much difference tbh also what happened to all the software stuff they have been boasting about.

I know I sound like I'm being aggressive or whatever but at the end of the day it's a overpriced NIC (10x the normal price?) with a router spec processor on it (based on routers than can be had for £8-£45).

One thing the tests do prove is that their own marketing tests were probably done on a low spec system.

Not sure how it ends with 70%

Still a good review, even if it is more like an advert (Given the masses of marketing info) Quote

21-03-2007, 16:30:06

Great review, stupid piece of hardware.Quote

21-03-2007, 16:31:32

Originally Posted by name='FragTek'
Great review,stupid piece of hardware.
idd haha

glad someone agreesQuote

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.