On board LAN worse than stand alone cards?

[guest]

I think it looks that way. Workstation boards might be better but the stuff we put in our home computers seems to suck. My X58 Gigabyte requires specific drivers for the on board NIC and I finally got tired messing with it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16833106033

$29 - I bought three of them and they are really nice. I can now maintain over 105 MB/s writes to my server where before I would get stuck around 35 - 55 MB/s.

In my case this was the best money I have spent in a long time.

I am using the cards under Windows 7 Ultimate, Windows Vista Ultimate and Windows 2008R2 Enterprise. All operating systems are 64-bit.

[caveman-jim]

On board solutions dont have CPU offload and other ASIC-embedded performance enhancements.

[panickme]

Depends on the onboard solution. Some are absolutely awesome but the vast majority are just dumb ethernet interfaces that make the CPU do most of the work. Not that that's such a problem with PCs today but having a dedicated solution is almost always a better option. Now that Nvidia cards are doing physics and sound I imagine it's only a matter of time before they buy Bigfoot and put a LAN jack onto their cards.

[VW_Factor]

I have gig network upstairs going, with basically 4 short runs (4 to 6 feet) of 5e.

100MB if Im lucky. It was really kinda disappointing. Although everything is using onboard NIC. Perhaps I should look into investing in proper NICs eh?

[vitocorleone]

Intel NICs have a LOT more functionality available in drivers, too, to tweak to your heart's content. My home server has my old PCI Intel gigabit NIC in it and even though it's an old computer the transfer rates are pretty good. My new PC is realtek and I've been meaning to get around to buying the NIC in the link above for about 4 months now - primarily to try out 9k jumbo frames (supported by the ancient Intel NIC but not the realtek NIC) but also to see if it lowers ping times and increases throughput.

[caveman-jim]

Originally Posted by VW_Factor

I have gig network upstairs going, with basically 4 short runs (4 to 6 feet) of 5e.

100MB if Im lucky. It was really kinda disappointing. Although everything is using onboard NIC. Perhaps I should look into investing in proper NICs eh?

100MB is pretty close to wirespeed. 100Mb is more disappointing. (MB = Megabyte; Mb = megabit). Myself I see 85-90MB/sec transfers to/from my R5 NAS to/from my desktops using onboard NICs (realtek).

[guest]

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

100MB is pretty close to wirespeed. 100Mb is more disappointing. (MB = Megabyte; Mb = megabit). Myself I see 85-90MB/sec transfers to/from my R5 NAS to/from my desktops using onboard NICs (realtek).

Yep. I witnessed 112MB/s at work once but it was on a $8,000 switch.

Technical specs of the card I got:
http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/prodbrief/319831.pdf

It also allows interrupt load balancing between multiple cores.

Some pics to show you what you see under device manager:

[Auric]

My olde timey on-board Intel Pro/100 VE sports all those property tabs except Boot Options. The Advanced Settings differ.

In considering a new mobo recently,
'twas dissapointing to learn that Intel network chips are not commonly available and lamentably, Gigabyte is using Realtek. Since keen on an mATX, slots are sparse (for a NIC) so the question is whether to instead opt for an Intel mobo but otherwise the Gigabyte offerings seem better.

[caveman-jim]

Given how cheap a really good nic is, I don't think basing your motherboard choice on integrated NIC is a good decision. Other factors might be more important, especially for an overclocker board.

Additionally if you don't have Gigabit switches that support jumbo frames then some of this is moot, as your network infrastructure will saturate before your NIC will.

[Auric]

True, but how important is overclocking these days especially given Turbo Boost? Even so, at least one of the Intel boards claims overclocking ability.

P55 mATX mobos @ newegg

[caveman-jim]

Overclocking is extremely important - look at the massive range of overclocker boards for AMD and Intel. Overclock or stay home, dude. Is it necessary? No.

[panickme]

Originally Posted by Auric

True, but how important is overclocking these days especially given Turbo Boost? Even so, at least one of the Intel boards claims overclocking ability.

P55 mATX mobos @ newegg

That should tell you how important it is if even Intel is getting into the game. I'm sure their "overclocking" board will only allow relatively modest speed bumps though.

Of course I remember back when Intel was showing off water cooling rigs and claiming that they were really into gaming too. That sort of fizzled with the speed race though.

[moshpit]

Wait, did I read that right? Somebody is dissapointed in 100MB/s LAN speeds???

Hell man! Keep in mind that's about the average write speed of a single spindle based hard drive. Your getting network transfer rates that match physical drive speeds. That tells me that perhaps your hard drive write speeds may be the bottleneck? GB ethernet should peak out at around 125MB/s for actual physical line speed. Overhead will eat some of that.

[guest]

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

Given how cheap a really good nic is, I don't think basing your motherboard choice on integrated NIC is a good decision. Other factors might be more important, especially for an overclocker board.

Additionally if you don't have Gigabit switches that support jumbo frames then some of this is moot, as your network infrastructure will saturate before your NIC will.

Vista/Win7/2008/2008R2 using SMB2 does not need jumbo frames. Jumbo frames does nothing.

Oh no, now it's a networking thread.

[caveman-jim]

If you're playing around with something other than SMB2 then you might want jumbo support - you never know when you're hungry for breaded shrimp, and jumbo are the best kind for that.

[the_mup]

Hard drives are what bottleneck a gigabit network.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...th,2321-7.html

[AMD_G@y]

What browsing and ran across this interesting read:

http://www.hanselman.com/blog/defaul...?month=2007-11

"Regardless, it turns out SMB2 is a way better protocol than SMB1. As far as I'm concerned, problem solved, I'm upgraded to Vista SP1 everywhere and am enjoying Disk Speed on the wire. Now I've gotten speeds up to 33MB/s between machines when copying large files depending on the disk of the machines involved, etc, without Jumbo Frames, and up to 66MB/s with Jumbo. I'll be sure to only get network cards that support Jumbo Frames in the future. I'm happy I went gigabit and I'm happy I went Vista SP1 and I'm happy I went Cat6."


So it seems that when dealing in the land of Gigabit networks, SMB2 & JUMBO FRAMES together make the biggest difference, again mostly depending upon the NIC drivers.

[guest]

Originally Posted by the_mup

Hard drives are what bottleneck a gigabit network.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...th,2321-7.html

I present to you my "hard drive"

[moshpit]

That's all pure read. Can your setup write that fast too? Doubt it.

Keep in mind that while one side is reading, the other side is writing, in a large network transfer.

[guest]

Originally Posted by moshpit

That's all pure read. Can your setup write that fast too? Doubt it.

I have unsafe write caching turned on as I have a UPS. If my file writes are under 4 GB or so it doesn't matter.

The write performance should be greater than half the read performance. If not something is wrong.

[the_mup]

Originally Posted by guest

I present to you my "hard drive"

Nice

Do you have a raid on the machine that you transfer files to?

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by the_mup

Nice

Do you have a raid on the machine that you transfer files to?

Wouldn't matter if he did. RAID improves read speeds alot, but doesn't do nearly as much for writes. In fact, in some cases is actually slower for random writes.

[guest]

Originally Posted by the_mup

Nice

Do you have a raid on the machine that you transfer files to?

Yes I have a RAID setup on both systems. However I also do work from the server as well.

I plan on doing RAID0 SSD on my workstation some day.

[caveman-jim]

Originally Posted by moshpit

Wouldn't matter if he did. RAID improves read speeds alot, but doesn't do nearly as much for writes. In fact, in some cases is actually slower for random writes.

What RAID implementations do you use? Change it soon, because I'm seeing performance increases well above single drive speeds.

[guest]

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

What RAID implementations do you use? Change it soon, because I'm seeing performance increases well above single drive speeds.

Indeed. RAID 5 shines on sequential reads AND writes. 0+1 is far better for random IO.

[Crisler]

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

Overclocking is extremely important - look at the massive range of overclocker boards for AMD and Intel. Overclock or stay home, dude. .

HORSE CRAP! Overclocking is not important, it is HYPED. With very few exceptions overlcocking does not in any way have any real impact on the computing experience. Overclocking is basically the same for a geek as a middle age man buying a Porsche.

Well I have nothing to compensate for, I am quite secure in my computer usage and other areas. If I need more power I buy a bigger processor. Also I refer you to my blog for other considerations on overclocking.

[VW_Factor]

Originally Posted by Crisler

HORSE CRAP! Overclocking is not important, it is HYPED. With very few exceptions overlcocking does not in any way have any real impact on the computing experience. Overclocking is basically the same for a geek as a middle age man buying a Porsche.

Well I have nothing to compensate for, I am quite secure in my computer usage and other areas. If I need more power I buy a bigger processor. Also I refer you to my blog for other considerations on overclocking.

And you want people to take you seriously?

[caveman-jim]

Originally Posted by Crisler

HORSE CRAP! Overclocking is not important, it is HYPED. With very few exceptions overlcocking does not in any way have any real impact on the computing experience. Overclocking is basically the same for a geek as a middle age man buying a Porsche.

Well I have nothing to compensate for, I am quite secure in my computer usage and other areas. If I need more power I buy a bigger processor. Also I refer you to my blog for other considerations on overclocking.

I wouldn't expect you to understand, you don't understand why people overclock so you don't understand why companies market towards overclockers.

If you truly believe overclocking is the geek equivalent of a mid-life crisis sportscar, you should change the batteries in your carbon monoxide detector and schedule a radon scan - there are obviously dangerous levels of gas in your home, and I'm worried for your safety.

[grog]

So I guess no one would want to use this then:

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

I wouldn't expect you to understand, you don't understand why people overclock so you don't understand why companies market towards overclockers.

If you truly believe overclocking is the geek equivalent of a mid-life crisis sportscar, you should change the batteries in your carbon monoxide detector and schedule a radon scan - there are obviously dangerous levels of gas in your home, and I'm worried for your safety.

[Ristogod]

Originally Posted by Crisler

HORSE CRAP! Overclocking is not important, it is HYPED. With very few exceptions overlcocking does not in any way have any real impact on the computing experience. Overclocking is basically the same for a geek as a middle age man buying a Porsche.

Well I have nothing to compensate for, I am quite secure in my computer usage and other areas. If I need more power I buy a bigger processor. Also I refer you to my blog for other considerations on overclocking.

What in the world are we going to do with you?