jameyscott

I ended up going with this switch because it was a great price and included all 16 transceivers.  I also bought two of these.  I hope they work together.... If not, then I'll have to hunt down what will work with the unit.  Still haven't purchased the fiber cables, because I'm not sure which transceivers are in that unit, so I emailed the seller. Once I know that, I can find the cables I need.

Did you even read the article or just post on impulse? It said nothing about tax increases in the slightest, in fact it even said part of the plan is tax breaks. The plan is to increase competition by lowering taxes and decreasing regulations.
 

Not Gigabyte, but Gigabit. 1 Gigabit = 125 Megabyte. (8 bits per 1 Byte.)

Honestly I dont know. i didnt look in to compatibilty.  The links where more for examples rather than this is definatly what you should get..
Normaly I buy the Finsar branded ones they seem to work.  But you are right, some SFP modules are not compatible with what they get pluged in to.
 
If i was to buy a fibre chanel switch i would go with  EMC branded one.  the Finsar SFP's work in those. 

The only other option that would trump what your trying to do is Fibre Channel.  This is purely designed for storage networks.  You can easly get 4 - 8 gig cards and switches fearly cheaply now if they are used.  
 
For example you would need:
 
FC switch : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GH640-McData-Sphereon-ES-4700-4Gbps-1U-Fiber-Channel-Switch-/141541829942?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20f48ced36
 
SFP modules : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Brocade-4GB-SW-Fibre-Channel-FC-SFP-Module-Transceiver-57-1000013-01-300-/301486122519?pt=UK_Computing_Network_Switches&hash=item4631f92617
 
Fibre channel PCIe card:  http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NEW-Dell-KD414-4Gb-Single-Chanel-PCi-e-x4-Fibre-Chanel-Host-Bus-Adapter-New-/281519750765?pt=UK_Computing_ComputerComponents_InterfaceCards&hash=item418be27e6d
 
And some Multimode OM3 LC- LC Fibre 
 
You would have to configure the switch but the Brocade ones come with a web management panel any way so its not that hard.    Its up to you  the fibre chanel is just a suggestion. its up to you.

Hello!
 
Are you just doing this on the switch above ?  it only has 8 ports....  (ok i think you answared this in your second paragraph )
 
Can you just confirm what the network layout is?  how many switches ext.  
If you want to have 6Gbs on each connection per PC,   From what your syaing your thinking of having multiple NICs  using link aggregation.  This I dont think you can do because they are multiple NIC cards and especialy in windows you cant Aggregate two or more network cards togeather. 
 
If you put multiple network cards in a machine and connect them all up to the switch you would not get 4, 6 or what ever Gbps because each would get their own IP address.  Thus giving you multiple 1GBs links that trafic can go down.
 
You need to be looking at getting a network card that has 4, 1GBs ports on it that supports Link Aggregation.
And a switch with enough ports to be able to deal with these multiple Aggregated links.  Some only support say 4 Aggregate connections.  For exapmple the switch you mentioned supports 6 Aggregate groups and up to 4 ports each in each Aggregate.
 
So there will be some reaseach involved!
 
What your trying to do will work.  You just need the right kit to do it.
 
 
 
I Think this covers what your asking?

Hey Jameyscott
 
This wont give you anywhere near the bandwidth that you are expecting, the issue here is that this technology was invented for larger organisations.
 
As such the algorithm that load balances over the physical links uses a hashing of anything from just the source IP of the packet right through to the source IP, destination IP and the ports to choose the link. worst case is if it is just the source IP then you will only ever use one link as the hash will always come out the same. Best case it uses the ports and it can be a bit more random. 
 
This was always designed for switch to switch communication as there is many IP's/ports flowing over the bundled link and then the law of averages will even things out.

so what is the goal here,
 
if this is to increase the bandwidth you may just be burning cash if the device only supports source IP hashing on the LACP then you would only ever use a single link from the bundle anyway and therefore only get the gig that you had anyway (minus the LACP overhead of course).
 
maybe I have missed something here 

LACP is not load balancing,
 
it is link aggregation, for it to do the best job it would need to negotiate at both the device end and the switch end. You can windows team at the device end only if you wish but this would only be aggregation outbound.
 
If you are expecting the inbound connections to be aggregated to the NAS then it is vital that the switch is LACP compatible or again you would be limited to only one inbound link for all the connections.
 
Lets assume that you you have the most optimal conditions and that you have 2 workstations connecting to the one NAS and the NAS had a 4 port LAG and the LACP algorithm chooses a different port for each machine you are still going to be limited by that port for that connection. It is not true load balancing it does not send one frame down one link then the next frame down another link, that connection is still limited by that link speed, and the chances are that all connections from that machine to the NAS will go down that same link.
 
In reality unless you are connecting two switches together then LACP really isn't going to do much for you.  

Source- TweakTown
 
 
Really Ubisoft?  You have to dig your hole even deeper?  I'm not even a fan of the Assassin's Creed series, but this just genuinely pisses me off.  Blaming a hardware company for something that is clearly your own fault.  It's honestly despicable.  Don't even get me started on Uplay. 
I would write a long winded post, but AMD's response to this really sums it up.  
 
"The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place. On the other hand, consoles have to-the-metal access and almost non-existent API Overhead but significantly underpowered hardware which is not able to cope with the stress of the multitude of polygons. Simply put, its a very very bad port for the PC Platform and an unoptimized (some would even go as far as saying, unfinished) title on the consoles".
 

Source- TweakTown
 
 
Really Ubisoft?  You have to dig your hole even deeper?  I'm not even a fan of the Assassin's Creed series, but this just genuinely pisses me off.  Blaming a hardware company for something that is clearly your own fault.  It's honestly despicable.  Don't even get me started on Uplay. 
I would write a long winded post, but AMD's response to this really sums it up.  
 
"The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place. On the other hand, consoles have to-the-metal access and almost non-existent API Overhead but significantly underpowered hardware which is not able to cope with the stress of the multitude of polygons. Simply put, its a very very bad port for the PC Platform and an unoptimized (some would even go as far as saying, unfinished) title on the consoles".
 

Source- TweakTown
 
 
Really Ubisoft?  You have to dig your hole even deeper?  I'm not even a fan of the Assassin's Creed series, but this just genuinely pisses me off.  Blaming a hardware company for something that is clearly your own fault.  It's honestly despicable.  Don't even get me started on Uplay. 
I would write a long winded post, but AMD's response to this really sums it up.  
 
"The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place. On the other hand, consoles have to-the-metal access and almost non-existent API Overhead but significantly underpowered hardware which is not able to cope with the stress of the multitude of polygons. Simply put, its a very very bad port for the PC Platform and an unoptimized (some would even go as far as saying, unfinished) title on the consoles".
 

Source- TweakTown
 
 
Really Ubisoft?  You have to dig your hole even deeper?  I'm not even a fan of the Assassin's Creed series, but this just genuinely pisses me off.  Blaming a hardware company for something that is clearly your own fault.  It's honestly despicable.  Don't even get me started on Uplay. 
I would write a long winded post, but AMD's response to this really sums it up.  
 
"The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place. On the other hand, consoles have to-the-metal access and almost non-existent API Overhead but significantly underpowered hardware which is not able to cope with the stress of the multitude of polygons. Simply put, its a very very bad port for the PC Platform and an unoptimized (some would even go as far as saying, unfinished) title on the consoles".
 

Source- TweakTown
 
 
Really Ubisoft?  You have to dig your hole even deeper?  I'm not even a fan of the Assassin's Creed series, but this just genuinely pisses me off.  Blaming a hardware company for something that is clearly your own fault.  It's honestly despicable.  Don't even get me started on Uplay. 
I would write a long winded post, but AMD's response to this really sums it up.  
 
"The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place. On the other hand, consoles have to-the-metal access and almost non-existent API Overhead but significantly underpowered hardware which is not able to cope with the stress of the multitude of polygons. Simply put, its a very very bad port for the PC Platform and an unoptimized (some would even go as far as saying, unfinished) title on the consoles".
 

Source- TweakTown
 
 
Really Ubisoft?  You have to dig your hole even deeper?  I'm not even a fan of the Assassin's Creed series, but this just genuinely pisses me off.  Blaming a hardware company for something that is clearly your own fault.  It's honestly despicable.  Don't even get me started on Uplay. 
I would write a long winded post, but AMD's response to this really sums it up.  
 
"The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place. On the other hand, consoles have to-the-metal access and almost non-existent API Overhead but significantly underpowered hardware which is not able to cope with the stress of the multitude of polygons. Simply put, its a very very bad port for the PC Platform and an unoptimized (some would even go as far as saying, unfinished) title on the consoles".
 

Source- TweakTown
 
 
Really Ubisoft?  You have to dig your hole even deeper?  I'm not even a fan of the Assassin's Creed series, but this just genuinely pisses me off.  Blaming a hardware company for something that is clearly your own fault.  It's honestly despicable.  Don't even get me started on Uplay. 
I would write a long winded post, but AMD's response to this really sums it up.  
 
"The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place. On the other hand, consoles have to-the-metal access and almost non-existent API Overhead but significantly underpowered hardware which is not able to cope with the stress of the multitude of polygons. Simply put, its a very very bad port for the PC Platform and an unoptimized (some would even go as far as saying, unfinished) title on the consoles".
 

Source- TweakTown
 
 
Really Ubisoft?  You have to dig your hole even deeper?  I'm not even a fan of the Assassin's Creed series, but this just genuinely pisses me off.  Blaming a hardware company for something that is clearly your own fault.  It's honestly despicable.  Don't even get me started on Uplay. 
I would write a long winded post, but AMD's response to this really sums it up.  
 
"The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place. On the other hand, consoles have to-the-metal access and almost non-existent API Overhead but significantly underpowered hardware which is not able to cope with the stress of the multitude of polygons. Simply put, its a very very bad port for the PC Platform and an unoptimized (some would even go as far as saying, unfinished) title on the consoles".
 

Source- TweakTown
 
 
Really Ubisoft?  You have to dig your hole even deeper?  I'm not even a fan of the Assassin's Creed series, but this just genuinely pisses me off.  Blaming a hardware company for something that is clearly your own fault.  It's honestly despicable.  Don't even get me started on Uplay. 
I would write a long winded post, but AMD's response to this really sums it up.  
 
"The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place. On the other hand, consoles have to-the-metal access and almost non-existent API Overhead but significantly underpowered hardware which is not able to cope with the stress of the multitude of polygons. Simply put, its a very very bad port for the PC Platform and an unoptimized (some would even go as far as saying, unfinished) title on the consoles".
 

Source- TweakTown
 
 
Really Ubisoft?  You have to dig your hole even deeper?  I'm not even a fan of the Assassin's Creed series, but this just genuinely pisses me off.  Blaming a hardware company for something that is clearly your own fault.  It's honestly despicable.  Don't even get me started on Uplay. 
I would write a long winded post, but AMD's response to this really sums it up.  
 
"The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place. On the other hand, consoles have to-the-metal access and almost non-existent API Overhead but significantly underpowered hardware which is not able to cope with the stress of the multitude of polygons. Simply put, its a very very bad port for the PC Platform and an unoptimized (some would even go as far as saying, unfinished) title on the consoles".
 

Source- TweakTown
 
 
Really Ubisoft?  You have to dig your hole even deeper?  I'm not even a fan of the Assassin's Creed series, but this just genuinely pisses me off.  Blaming a hardware company for something that is clearly your own fault.  It's honestly despicable.  Don't even get me started on Uplay. 
I would write a long winded post, but AMD's response to this really sums it up.  
 
"The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place. On the other hand, consoles have to-the-metal access and almost non-existent API Overhead but significantly underpowered hardware which is not able to cope with the stress of the multitude of polygons. Simply put, its a very very bad port for the PC Platform and an unoptimized (some would even go as far as saying, unfinished) title on the consoles".
 

Source- TweakTown
 
 
Really Ubisoft?  You have to dig your hole even deeper?  I'm not even a fan of the Assassin's Creed series, but this just genuinely pisses me off.  Blaming a hardware company for something that is clearly your own fault.  It's honestly despicable.  Don't even get me started on Uplay. 
I would write a long winded post, but AMD's response to this really sums it up.  
 
"The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place. On the other hand, consoles have to-the-metal access and almost non-existent API Overhead but significantly underpowered hardware which is not able to cope with the stress of the multitude of polygons. Simply put, its a very very bad port for the PC Platform and an unoptimized (some would even go as far as saying, unfinished) title on the consoles".
 

Source- TweakTown
 
 
Really Ubisoft?  You have to dig your hole even deeper?  I'm not even a fan of the Assassin's Creed series, but this just genuinely pisses me off.  Blaming a hardware company for something that is clearly your own fault.  It's honestly despicable.  Don't even get me started on Uplay. 
I would write a long winded post, but AMD's response to this really sums it up.  
 
"The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place. On the other hand, consoles have to-the-metal access and almost non-existent API Overhead but significantly underpowered hardware which is not able to cope with the stress of the multitude of polygons. Simply put, its a very very bad port for the PC Platform and an unoptimized (some would even go as far as saying, unfinished) title on the consoles".
 

Source- TweakTown
 
 
Really Ubisoft?  You have to dig your hole even deeper?  I'm not even a fan of the Assassin's Creed series, but this just genuinely pisses me off.  Blaming a hardware company for something that is clearly your own fault.  It's honestly despicable.  Don't even get me started on Uplay. 
I would write a long winded post, but AMD's response to this really sums it up.  
 
"The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place. On the other hand, consoles have to-the-metal access and almost non-existent API Overhead but significantly underpowered hardware which is not able to cope with the stress of the multitude of polygons. Simply put, its a very very bad port for the PC Platform and an unoptimized (some would even go as far as saying, unfinished) title on the consoles".
 

We're talking about what a PR from Ubisoft said.  Someone who is supposed to choose their words very carefully as not to step on toes.  Oh, who am I kidding.  We're talking about Ubifsoft's PR here! 

That was AMD's response when emailed by WCCFTech.  
 
What would you like me to change the title to.  Clickyclickbait?  Ubitsoft yet again full of crap?  
 
You can see it as clickbait if you want, and I can see where you are coming from.  But saying "We are aware that the graphics performance of Assassin's Creed Unity on PC may be adversely affected by certain AMD CPU and GPU configurations."  instead of "We are aware of the issues currently on the PC's version of Assassin's Creed Unity", to me they are blaming AMD.  That's just the way I see it.