# Intel I219V vs Killer E2400



## JonFX01

Killer E220x LAN doesn't have a good reputation, but what about the Killer E2400? Is it better? You can find it in several high-end motherboards.


----------



## Blameless

The E2400 is pretty new and I haven't seen much information on it.

I would not expect it to be better than the i219, but don't expect most people to be able to tell the difference between the two either. The e2400 has a few neat features, especially with regard to wifi-teaming, but I probably wouldn't even bother installing anything other than the basic driver.

Realistically, unless you are pushing the limits of what you can do with a gigabit connection, or happen to be using a buggy driver, it's not going to matter much whether your onboard NIC is made by Intel, Realtek, Broadcom, or Atheros (the latter being what is used for all recent Killer NICs).


----------



## toyz72

i think mine is the e2200,and i cant say im really that impressed with it. but with the e2200 you can just dl the drivers and leave out the bloatware. i would think its going to be the same with the newer e2400.


----------



## JonFX01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *toyz72*
> 
> i think mine is the e2200,and i cant say im really that impressed with it. but with the e2200 you can just dl the drivers and leave out the bloatware. i would think its going to be the same with the newer e2400.


Bloatware is strong in my family. My father's notebook has it. I have it. My sister's tablet has it. And now my desktop will have it too.


----------



## MaFi0s0

Quote:


> Reasons Killer never took off:
> 1. It costs way too much
> 2. Routers already do QoS, which is where you want it anyway, any device on your network is affected. Things like torrents can be done easily without QoS, by limiting the bandwidth used within torrent software. I used to play Diablo 2 online while torrenting with an imperceptible difference in lag simply by setting limit, I think it was like 80%.
> 3. The latency differences while good percentage-wise, are mostly academic due to 1/10 of a ms not really mattering. If you can get 0.2% lower latency at the cost of increased CPU load, you may be better saving your CPU cycles.


http://techreport.com/review/29144/revisiting-the-killer-nic-eight-years-on
Quote:


> Our test subject in this case is the Z170X-Gaming 7. With its twin GigE interfaces-one Killer-powered and one Intel-powered-it's the perfect candidate for some side-by-side testing.


Quote:


> The Intel's I219-V's minimum round trip latency is 38.3 microseconds, or 71%, longer than the Killer E2400's.


Quote:


> With a 32-byte payload, the results are even more impressive. Here, the Killer has a round-trip latency that is under one-third of what the Intel controller achieves.


Quote:


> The Killer outperfors the Intel controller by a wide margin at small request-and-response sizes, and the margin shrinks as the size increases. *The Killer's CPU usage is higher than Intel's*, but not more than 1% higher in these tests.


Quote:


> Enabling Bandwidth Control in the Killer Network Manager immediately changed all that. Ping times returned to a much more manageable 50-ms range, and gameplay was pleasant once again. My downloads continued in the background, and I was happily back to "testing" for this article.
> 
> Running the same test of Team Fortress 2 gameplay with torrents downloading in the background on the Intel network controller gave the same results as using the Killer with Bandwidth Control disabled-an unplayable experience that left me spending more time waiting to respawn than actually playing the game.


Quote:


> *Conclusions*
> Killer Networking hardware is appearing in more and more motherboards and laptops. It's a long way from the original Killer NICs that polarized so many in the PC hardware world. If you want the features of Killer's networking stack, you no longer have to pay for an add-in PCI or PCIe network card with dedicated network processing hardware.
> 
> The real question is whether your next device should have a Killer NIC baked in. The company's software suite does offer some impressive features, like automatic prioritization of game traffic and other latency-sensitive packets. If those features sound valuable for your needs, or you think that it's something you'd like to try out, we have no qualms about recommending a motherboard with Killer Networking onboard.
> 
> Our testing showed that the Killer E2400 is a capable Gigabit Ethernet controller, though it did use more CPU time under some network loads compared to an Intel NIC. The Killer E2400 often delivered lower packet latency in exchange for the extra CPU cycles, and its local prioritization voodoo worked as advertised for us, too.
> 
> We didn't experience any issues with system stability or crashes, either with the full Killer suite or the company's plain driver-instability being one bit of conventional wisdom that some folks cite as a reason to avoid Killer hardware. If you're wary of an otherwise-ideal motherboard or laptop just because it happens to have Killer-powered networking on board, you can probably relax. Not only can you disable the Bandwidth Control feature of Killer's software, but you can also forgo the company's software suite entirely and just install a plain driver package. If all you want is a basic GigE controller with no frills, the Killer NIC can play that role, too.


----------



## chorey

I can't seem to get any more out of the Intel I219V than 670kbps download 46kbps upload, while the wife's older Realtek onboard card on the same router gets 900Kbps 86kbps upload from my gigabit connection, it cannot handle gigabit, I've tried every suggestion by Intel to fix this issue to no avail, I'm not impressed.


----------



## KINTZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chorey*
> 
> I can't seem to get any more out of the Intel I219V than 670kbps download 46kbps upload, while the wife's older Realtek onboard card on the same router gets 900Kbps 86kbps upload from my gigabit connection, it cannot handle gigabit, I've tried every suggestion by Intel to fix this issue to no avail, I'm not impressed.


I have it and it works fine with 1000Mbps.
you need to have a gigabit connection but also you need at least a Cat5e cable


----------



## wellendowed

KINTZ said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by *chorey*
> 
> I can't seem to get any more out of the Intel I219V than 670kbps download 46kbps upload, while the wife's older Realtek onboard card on the same router gets 900Kbps 86kbps upload from my gigabit connection, it cannot handle gigabit, I've tried every suggestion by Intel to fix this issue to no avail, I'm not impressed.
> 
> 
> I have it and it works fine with 1000Mbps.
> you need to have a gigabit connection but also you need at least a Cat5e cable


I'm having the same issue.. I have a gigabit connection and a Cat5e cable, and still cannot pull more than 670kbps.

Any suggestions?


----------

