bit-tech.net

Killer gaming WiFi adaptor released

Killer gaming WiFi adaptor released

The wireless card is likely to include Bigfoot's proprietary NPU (network processing unit).

Bigfoot Networks, the company behind the Killer line of gaming networking kit, today introduced its new Killer Wireless-N laptop network adaptor.

As ever, the launch has been accompanied by some eye catching numbers, with Bigfoot claiming that the Wireless-N offers transfer speeds up to five times faster than those of standard WiFi adaptors.

This, says Bigfoot, will enable laptop gamers to have the edge over opponents who don't have comparable networking kit, cutting down on latency and lag.

Bigfoot Networks' CEO Michael Howse was also quick to point out that wireless connections are usually unsuitable for other online activities that are sensitive to wireless packet loss, such as VOIP and HD video streaming.

He went on to state that 'with our innovative networking technology and advanced 802.11n hardware, Killer Wireless-N adapters not only accelerate performance for online games, they also reduce stuttering, excessive buffering and other annoyances in video chat and on-demand entertainment services.'

To achieve this performance, the card purportedly uses a number of clever range-enhancing 802.11n technologies to maximise the bandwidth available to the PC, which Bigfoot has developed itself. The card will also come bundled with the Advanced Stream Detect traffic prioritisation technology and Visual Bandwidth Control software, which Bigfoot currently ships with its desktop gaming network cards.

We’ve been pretty scathing in our criticism of the Killer range of network cards in the past, but Bigfoot could finally be onto a winner by targeting the unreliable world of wireless networking, which is often ridden with packet-loss issues. After all, trying to play competitively over a buggy wireless network can be a very frustrating experience.

Do you game on your laptop? Does a wireless card that prioritises gaming traffic sound like it would be useful? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

37 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
mi1ez 1st March 2011, 14:29 Quote
I can't see them fulfilling many, if any, of those promises...
Picarro 1st March 2011, 14:31 Quote
Oh but come on. None of these "Killer" items have ever worked in any way. It's a massive ripoff.

/rant.
wuyanxu 1st March 2011, 14:34 Quote
why don't they bring out a router? that's usually the root of most client-side lags: cheap ISP routers that don't have QoS.
r3loaded 1st March 2011, 14:37 Quote
What sort of gamer (who has the choice) plays on wifi anyway?
Fanatic 1st March 2011, 14:42 Quote
If there is a choice no one plays on wifi - IF (and its a big IF) they can overcome/improve the inherent issuse with wireless in it current form they may sell a few, but I wouldnt be picking one up. Have no doubt it will probably cost the same as a small country's GDP too!
Phalanx 1st March 2011, 14:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
why don't they bring out a router? that's usually the route of most client-side lags: cheap ISP routers that don't have QoS.

Fixed :D
EvilRusk 1st March 2011, 14:47 Quote
Uh, I use wifi and it works fine for me playing games!

It's all down to setting things up properly. I use a decent wireless-N usb dongle positioned clear of obstacles, choose a clear channel so no interference from neighbours and rarely have any trouble at all.

In my experience the quality of connection is affected more by how good your ISP is, whether there is congestion anywhere along the route to the server and if anybody at home is downloading.

I do agree that producing a killer wifi card is a waste of time without sorting the router as well as the connection is only as good as the weakest link.
Tokukachi 1st March 2011, 15:03 Quote
Are these guys a sub-division of Monster Cables?
Evildead666 1st March 2011, 15:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neat69
Are these guys a sub-division of Monster Cables?

Exactly what I was thinking. ;)
Fizzban 1st March 2011, 16:11 Quote
Prioritising gaming traffic is all well and good but how much of a difference does it really make? Little to none from what I've seen. If you really care that much about your ping then you should get with an ISP like BE who prioritise gaming traffic over their network. That will benefit you in a real sense, rather than in an imaginary sense.
SMIFFYDUDE 1st March 2011, 16:20 Quote
Oh great timing, I just ran out of my last bottle of snake oil.

I game wirelessly and have no difference in pings no extra lag from when I used ethernet cable.
Claave 1st March 2011, 16:21 Quote
Article now with actual images of the WiFi unit!
faugusztin 1st March 2011, 16:35 Quote
Pocket-killer! No other use for it :).
xaser04 1st March 2011, 16:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
Bigfoot claiming that the Wireless-N offers transfer speeds up to five times faster than those of standard WiFi adaptors.

Were they comparing it to a 802.11g adaptor by chance?
lamboman 1st March 2011, 16:59 Quote
Amazing...five times faster. So in other words, they'll be able to get my transfer speeds to be faster than my routers and cards are rated at...

Once the wifi adaptor is working normally, it's ALL in the router. We know that...they're trying to fool the wrong crowd, methinks.
thehippoz 1st March 2011, 17:48 Quote
actually I have noticed the n cards are faster than the older b-g

for example in chop tests against a wireless g.. we used a popular wireless card with high wattage- it ran a 40 second chop

same distance we ran a card that was 4 times weaker in wattage but was the newer n type, using the same 9 dbi antennae- did it in 12.. same 2.4-2.5ghz range so it's not using the higher frequency either

with 18 dbi directional of course even better

so they may have a claim, but they aren't the only ones.. I ended up amping the sucker and probably have the best setup for wireless that would blow the socks off this card- for a lot cheaper too

thing is I maybe plan to sell these as kits.. so I can't be giving up the exact details as I normally would (you guys know me- give up all the secrets and if someone is being a fanboi they get the pumpkin to the face :o)
ch424 1st March 2011, 18:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehippoz
actually I have noticed the n cards are faster than the older b-g

Of course they're faster. They use double the radio bandwidth, and use MIMO.
thehippoz 1st March 2011, 18:19 Quote
same freq
tad2008 1st March 2011, 18:48 Quote
Review?
ch424 1st March 2011, 19:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehippoz
same freq

There's a difference between frequency and bandwidth. The frequency is the centre frequency that the signal is modulated about (somewhere 2.4-2.5GHz in this case) and bandwidth is the width of the channel within that (20MHz for b/g, 40MHz for n).
faugusztin 1st March 2011, 21:12 Quote
@tad2008: Seriously ? It is technically impossible for this thing to be any faster than any other 802.11n card.
HourBeforeDawn 1st March 2011, 21:13 Quote
well lets hope that there is some form of truth to this unlike their over priced doesnt do a **** of difference lan network cards. :)
l3v1ck 1st March 2011, 21:52 Quote
Wouldn't this card be reliant on you having an equally good wireless router?
tad2008 1st March 2011, 22:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
@tad2008: Seriously ? It is technically impossible for this thing to be any faster than any other 802.11n card.

Yes seriously, lol, most of us here know that not all hardware is equal and some is simply not worth paying over the odds for, false and often exaggerated claims, marketing ploys, etc

Afterall, it's not just about pure speed, surely it's about having a high or at least consistent throughput, especially for games vs multimedia streaming or web browsing. If all hardware was equal then we'd all be using the same products made by one manufacturer, now that would be a dull world indeed!

Yes I'd rather have a wired connection than wireless anyday and onboard Lan connections suffice for my needs but my needs aren't every ones.
thehippoz 1st March 2011, 22:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ch424
There's a difference between frequency and bandwidth. The frequency is the centre frequency that the signal is modulated about (somewhere 2.4-2.5GHz in this case) and bandwidth is the width of the channel within that (20MHz for b/g, 40MHz for n).

n is not in the 2.4-2.5 range.. we used the same router for both tests- I know n is faster because it runs in the 5k range =]

we were expecting the higher power would always win considering it was using the same freq.. not bandwidth but latency related, I know what your saying but it was to the exact same g wireless router- so all I can think of is the b/g/n card either has better drivers written for it, or the hardware is changed like killer is claiming here

or another possible difference was the antennae we used- it was really interesting to see
Tulatin 1st March 2011, 23:44 Quote
I wonder when they'll release the Killer Networks Power supply. It optimizes current to help your components perform so much faster.

Or at the least, I wonder why Monster hasn't taken into the PC market yet. I'd love to see a $499 500W PSU and $65 SATA cables.
V3ctor 1st March 2011, 23:45 Quote
I want to see a bit-tech review about this, compare it to Intel's Wi-fi and show us the difference... If it's worth, I'll buy it, if it's like their lan port, they can forget my money
turbobeta 2nd March 2011, 02:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
why don't they bring out a router? that's usually the root of most client-side lags: cheap ISP routers that don't have QoS.

Why don't they make enterprise hardware? Because their product is snake oil.
ssj12 2nd March 2011, 04:41 Quote
So you replace the network card in a laptop with this? Its actually tempting to do this as my, father, mother, and sister's laptops all have G-cards.

Edit: seems there are two models. One that has N up to 300mbps the other 450mbps. Interesting.
ZERO <ibis> 2nd March 2011, 05:18 Quote
Wireless gaming, yea I heard you can get wireless food too now...
general22 2nd March 2011, 07:03 Quote
lol wireless gaming, how about use a cable.
Christoburg 2nd March 2011, 07:13 Quote
Hmmm. But 5 x regular transfer speed? That's quite a claim.
mpr 2nd March 2011, 09:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Picarro
Oh but come on. None of these "Killer" items have ever worked in any way. It's a massive ripoff.

/rant.

Actually they have been proven time and again to work, it's also been proven that they miniscule increase in stability is not worth the cost unless you happened upon one for free.
paisa666 2nd March 2011, 14:58 Quote
RIP OFF!!!
RichCreedy 2nd March 2011, 21:20 Quote
i use an intel ultimate n 6300 in my lappy
Rezident 4th March 2011, 00:55 Quote
Is there any truth in their claims or is this just marketing? There must be something behind it, at least theoretically? I have to game wirelessly and at times it is infuriating. I might be tempted...
InSanCen 4th March 2011, 08:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehippoz
Quote:
Originally Posted by ch424
There's a difference between frequency and bandwidth. The frequency is the centre frequency that the signal is modulated about (somewhere 2.4-2.5GHz in this case) and bandwidth is the width of the channel within that (20MHz for b/g, 40MHz for n).

n is not in the 2.4-2.5 range.. we used the same router for both tests- I know n is faster because it runs in the 5k range =]

Nope, Dual Band N uses a frequency that is in the 5Ghz range, in addition to one at 2.4-2.5Ghz. Hence it has a max theoritical throughput of 600Mb/s, it's using 2 channels. Standard 802.11n runs at 2.4-2.5Ghz.

As for the card itself, it's probably decent as a wireless card goes, but nothing I would shell out big money for, and certainly not for something with as much snake oil attached as this.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums