[ASUS] Tried And Tested: Why Intel Ethernet Is Still Better For Gaming.

[KakaoDj]

Asus' article and tests

 

You guys should check out the article, it is quite extensive. I am not an expert on networking by any means, but i think ASUS is pulling a fast one here (12ms vs 100ms). They also use odd wording, such as: a deeper analysis shows Intel Gigabit Ethernet is clearly better for gaming. That sure sounds like marketing bullcrap.

Funny how they censor the name of the "competitor" KxxxxeR E22xx LAN. So cheeky  :lol:

Your move, MSI 

 

 

 

 For many years, Intel’s Gigabit Ethernet chips have been the backbone of all ROG, and occasionally ASUS and TUF motherboards. The reason being is that it constantly showed better performance in our testing, which reviewers confirmed in their own testing too.

 

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.

 

[helping]

I'm not interested in reading into it, but based off the red squares something doesn't seem quite right here. 

[technovore]

I don't get how this works, don't game packets already get priority due to their protocol type?

[MrYuriy]

Asus' article and tests

 

Funny how they censor the name of the "competitor" KxxxxeR E22xx LAN. So cheeky  :lol:

 

 

 

 

Yup, this is essentially a little known fact now. Intel's Gigabit LAN is top notch.

Never seen this particular article though.. and from skimming it, I'm with @helping on this.. I don't see how it all applies, whether it's true or not.

But as I mentioned, this topic in itself is true. At least that's been my opinion and results from testing I did a while ago.

[wpirobotbuilder]

I don't get how this works, don't game packets already get priority due to their protocol type?

Not by default. Network traffic has to be deliberately prioritized, hence the gamefirst "on" and "off" options.

[qwertywarrior]

Oh come on lol. 12ms vs 100ms

Reminds me of nvidia's marketing 

[helping]

Not by default. Network traffic has to be deliberately prioritized, hence the gamefirst "on" and "off" options.

Oh I see, what this does is set priority to certain applications when you're... for some reason downloading using all your bandwidth at once and running a multiplayer game.

 

better go sell all my stuff for a ROG/Asus board then I guess. 

[yourdietsucks]

Oh come on lol. 12ms vs 100ms

Reminds me of nvidia's marketing 

 

1/80 of a second compared to 1/10 of a second makes no difference to you? for a lot of competitive online games it does.

[helping]

1/80 of a second compared to 1/10 of a second makes no difference to you? for a lot of competitive online games it does.

oh no, he's not questioning that. 

[Misanthrope]

Well of course it is, most of the time any "gaming" piece of hardware it's just bullshit and pretty colors. I mean don't get me wrong there's plenty of reasons to get mechanical keyboards, headsets and "gamer" motherboards sure but something that's specifically branded as "gamer" centric is usually equal or marginally better/worst to regular or enterprise alternatives...minus the aforementioned bling of course.

[ShiverMePenguins]

But... Killer nics are actually designed to prioritize for gaming

[deviant88]

Couldnt care less prolly less than 0.1% of gamers use Killer NECs, i would be 100 times more interested in a Realtek vs Intel network chips since realtek is nowdays the dominant standard used in motherboards for PC gaming.

 

I have a asrock b85pro with intel ethernet and i cant possibly see any advantage over my old realtek am2 board really old stuff from 2009 or so.Same bandwidth same pings.. i was playing Vindictus mmorpg back when i upgraded and in that game you have to host battles and players connect to you and their connection quality is visible and there were 0 ping improvements.

 

ASUS trying to bs people,cheap marketing.

 

Killer Necs suck anyway because there simply isnt any benefit ever in any game any of the integrated cheap intel/realtek ethernet chips are equal for gaming,the only thing that can improve your quality is fiber internet,being closer to the game servers physically or a high quality modem maybe.

[klotza1]

I could be wrong here, but World Of Warcraft lets you play with only 50% of the game downloaded and finishes in the background. This background DL always takes my ping up to around 170 from 23. If they enable "GameFirst" it probably just deny's the blizzard background down-loader. Hence the normal latency.

[deathjester]

And else notice that at the bottom of the screenshots they are downloading a patch and playing the game at the same time.

 

So was this a rigged test to show that if you prioritize certain packets through software that it can make hardware seem better?

 

Find it odd that they took this screenshot while downloading a patch in the background.

[deathjester]

I could be wrong here, but World Of Warcraft lets you play with only 50% of the game downloaded and finishes in the background. This background DL always takes my ping up to around 170 from 23. If they enable "GameFirst" it probably just deny's the blizzard background down-loader. Hence the normal latency.

 

Beat me to it.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1774348/prioritize-packets.html

 

Should do the same thing then right?

[AllstaRawR]

1/80 of a second compared to 1/10 of a second makes no difference to you? for a lot of competitive online games it does.

 

That's not what's being questioned... what's being questioned is how on earth did they get those bogus numbers? I have a Hero and a Z87I (I say this because they both have Intel I217)... and gamefirst does NOTHING for me buy count as bloatware.

 

Edit: Well. I guess not bogus. But they're downloading something to specifically show that benefit. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm RARELY using more than even a QUARTER of my bandwidth on other things if I'm gaming. Point is, I have it, I don't use it, I don't even install it anymore.

[klotza1]

Beat me to it.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1774348/prioritize-packets.html

 

Should do the same thing then right?

 

Actually not really, the "Gamefirst" is working more on a software level physically blocking wow.exe in the background. The general consensus is "packet prioritization" is pretty "meh" as far as a tangible bonus to your gaming.

 

Also the features they are talking about are not available on most cheap consumer routers.

[helping]

And else notice that at the bottom of the screenshots they are downloading a patch and playing the game at the same time.

 

So was this a rigged test to show that if you prioritize certain packets through software that it can make hardware seem better?

 

Find it odd that they took this screenshot while downloading a patch in the background.

I was under the assumption that was what they were displaying? Am I wrong? This is only useful if you happen to be ramming your connection with 100% saturation while trying to play something. 

 

I'm pretty sure it could be done through a proper router or one flashed to DDWRT/Tomato with port/IP/application based QoS, albeit takes a bit more effort than clicking a button.  

 

what I understood from that bar graph is "here's what your bandwidth and connection quality with regards to said arbitrary game when you're downloading the internet and gaming without Asus stuff"

 

i'm not really sure what Intel has to do with it though, if that's some Intel only feature. 

[klotza1]

Then they needed to show a different game. World of Warcraft specifically advertises the "Play as you download" feature. And turning it off is essentially game breaking before 80% lol.

[brownninja97]

Im a good marketer but honestly, this is just stupid, they are looking at it from the stupidest angle so that the worst case scenario is created BAKA.

[Dylan522p]

I believe it could be they tested hard wire connections. Your internet is the biggest bottleneck these days. Of course if you have a shit modem or router or something, you'll be dropping some packets.

[Askew]

This seems like glorified QoS to me, Intel nics are great and all but this is a bit silly.

 

The thing about ASUS is they have JJ, and when he does product showcases he will readily admit that basically the boards either have the chipset on them or not and most of the differences are purely aesthetics and featureset, which is the truth of the matter.

He will also admit overclocking is possible to ~same level on even the entry level budget board, it just has less features.

 

If he does a showcase on this, I'd like to hear it because normally he doesn't try to bullshit you in the showcase vids.

 

MSI, ASRock and the Fatal1ty brand normally are the ones who come out with ridiculous marketing terms. MILITARY CLASS POWAAAAZ anyone?

[TheGosuStandard]

How do I test this out for myself?

 

Even though it's probably bs.

[RazeG3SG1]

so... those killer nic that msi and gigabyte gaming line are worse than the intel nic of a normal z87 board?

[MRL]

I'll call this gimmick...

 

Prioritizing using software (I mean, software prioritizing on CPU rather than dedicated piece of hardware like Killer does or at least what I believe from their marketing and ads) doesn't work at all (at least per I tested on Realtek NIC on Asus motherboard using Asus's software that's part of AISuite). I don't know if it will be any different when using GameFirst or Intel NIC but I cannot imagine it to be any different.

 

Now, I use Killer NIC myself (the only reason why I bought MSI Z87-GD65) and it works good. Not because it prioritize my gaming packet (I don't even know if they really do that or just another marketing gimmick though I suspect the later) but it actually allows me to get connection via prioritization to other applications when one applications tried to hog all the bandwidth.

 

The only portion that I am willingly to accept from the article? It's the Diablo3 and LoL test, almost negligible benefit in real gaming situation...

 

Not that I don't believe the iPerf and IxChariot, but the Diablo3 and LoL result doesn't seem to reflect those iPerf and IxChariot (or maybe just because I have no idea what those test is all about?) unless you think 3 - 8ms faster is really matter for you (which maybe if you are in competitive gaming, idk... I'm not in one)

 

So, yeah... all I learn from the article is; if you are online gaming, set your priority straight (either manually or using prioritizing software)