Page 1 of 2

Integrated NIC or PCI?

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:59 pm
by DaveTheAve
Here's a nice question for all ya computer geeks out there. Will I get more performance from my ASUS A8N-E motherboard's integrated NIC or a separate 10/100/1000/2000 PCI NIC?

[thought]Something tells me the separate PCI NIC will win.[/thought]

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:02 pm
by Burrito
if I remember correctly the A8N only has gigabit.

if you have the capacity (switch / router) to use 2000, then the answer is obvious. If not, I don't think you'd see a measurable difference.

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:03 pm
by feyd
What's it connecting to? What will it be used for? If you don't have other gigabit devices, both are perfectly fine, but the integrated saves you a slot for something else.

If you looking for the fastest ethernet cards, Killernic is it. http://www.killernic.com/KillerNic/

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:09 pm
by DaveTheAve
Ha Ha Ha! KillerNIC, like I haven't seen that a million times before. Tell ya what, If the price ever drops below $60, tell me; I might consider buying it then. However, sense you prefer it, do you actually own one? If so, do you notice a difference in anything, other then the hole in your wallet?

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:15 pm
by feyd
DaveTheAve wrote:Ha Ha Ha! KillerNIC, like I haven't seen that a million times before. Tell ya what, If the price ever drops below $60, tell me; I might consider buying it then. However, sense you prefer it, do you actually own one? If so, do you notice a difference in anything, other then the hole in your wallet?
$200 for any single hardware component in most of my computers is fairly cheap. So if you think you're going to insult me, it's not going to work.

I don't run ethernet.

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:20 pm
by DaveTheAve
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come off as being insulting, rude, or even slightly mad. I thought it funny that you mention this part after soooo many people complain it doesn't work and it's not worth the money. But thats for people that probably know less then us. Thus I wished to know your results if you owned this part. Also, $200 for a NIC is not cheap, as my link above shows $13 is cheap, $50 fair, $200.... OUTRAGEOUS!

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:29 pm
by nickvd
Is the performance difference between say, a standard dlink nic and this killer monstrosity worth the $170 difference in price? I don't think anyone can come up with stats to justify that kind of markup.

(non-integrated nic's will be quicker, only due to removing the cpu from the equation)

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:38 pm
by feyd
DaveTheAve wrote:I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come off as being insulting, rude, or even slightly mad.
It's cool.
DaveTheAve wrote:I thought it funny that you mention this part after soooo many people complain it doesn't work and it's not worth the money. But thats for people that probably know less then us. Thus I wished to know your results if you owned this part. Also, $200 for a NIC is not cheap, as my link above shows $13 is cheap, $50 fair, $200.... OUTRAGEOUS!
If "it" delivers the quality, reliability and other features I desire, I'll pay whatever I need to.

But we digress. Can you answer the couple questions I asked?

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:51 pm
by DaveTheAve
Currently I have it installed to a DLink 1005D. Also it's currently for a rather large home network, say about 15-20 computers plus that don't account for other things like Ethernet gadgets and VoIP phones. However, I'm also looking into products for my own small website/storage hosting.

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:57 pm
by feyd
Considering the D-Link goes to only one gigabit (assuming there aren't firmwares to update it to two available now or in the somewhat near future) I don't see a problem with using the integrated one.

The nice thing is, you could test the performance (and so forth) using the integrated one. If you find it lackluster, you can easily pop in a card.

It may be better or more beneficial to get a switch to segregate the computers more so collisions (among other things) happen less.

edit: oops, missed that the D-Link is a switch, oh well, generally it'd be the same advice anyways.

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:08 pm
by DaveTheAve
feyd wrote:It may be better or more beneficial to get a switch to segregate the computers more so collisions (among other things) happen less.
That DLink was a switch, the DLink "Phones Home" to a Linux Router I made out of a old Dell Dimension 2100 that was laying around. (Need to get a gig card on this too now that I think of it)

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:25 pm
by The Phoenix
feyd wrote:I don't run Ethernet.
Token Ring? Fiber? HPNA?

Just curious.

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:27 pm
by feyd
The Phoenix wrote:
feyd wrote:I don't run Ethernet.
Token Ring? Fiber? HPNA?

Just curious.
Wireless at the moment. I move too often to run cables of any sort anymore.

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:22 pm
by DaveTheAve
Wireless is slower, though you most likely don't notice it for what you do. Just wait till 801.16 is out.

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:38 pm
by feyd
Considering my wireless speed is several hundred times faster than the maximum internet speeds available in the area for residential civilians. I really don't care if it's slower than gigabit level ethernet. I don't need it, nor do most networks.