While I cannot say I understand the full extent of some of the details Killer speaks of and claims benefits users, I can point out a few key areas of interest.
* Off-loading, Firewall & Windows network stack: They claim they're the only one that does more than just Checksum Off-Loading and they are ones that bypass the Windows Network Stack. I cannot be sure exactly how Nvidia's network off-loading feature works, but as far as I can determine it does bypass the Windows Network Stack the same as the Killer. This is the reason Nvidia warns that using this feature will bypass software based firewalls (Windows Firewall, McAfee, etc) and why Killer includes a firewall application with the NIC (you need it because you'd be defenseless otherwise unless you have a good router/configuration).
* Prioritizing Game Data: Nvidia offers First-Packet which works well - Anandtech has a review of it's general functionality benefits. Many routers also include QoS options to prioritize gaming such as D-Link's Gamefuel. While I would consider having it at the NIC level (computer) better, if you use a router, obviously to fully benefit from such technology, you need it there as well. If your NIC prioritizes and "accelerates" gaming data only to have your router not do so, you've lost a portion of the possible benefit.
I am by no means claiming these work as well as Killer claims their product does, but they do provide a degree of the same benefits/features (often for less money or in a more useful form).
* FPS in games - I am sure the results on their products charts are from multiplayer games with extremely linked Network & FPS engines. I forget the title, but it was pretty popular, we've all played 3D shooters where if you loss packets you're get a jerky frame rate and if you were disconnected, you're FPS dropped to basically 0. Rather than the case of many games were packet loss and chokes result in a smaller FPS hit, though the jerkiness is still visible, but the engine for the two are not so linked together that your game would not draw frames (of the scene on hold) even if you loss network.
Regardless of the possible benefits, how true and effective they are, I doubt that a Killer NIC is the best use of $150 in most people's systems. Sure, maybe in the ultra-high-end system with the best components and 2-4 video cards where you have nothing else to buy. Most people would see more benefit putting that money towards a GPU or CPU.
The root problem they are aiming to resolve as they mentioned also involves many other points (client OS - NIC - Router - ISPs/networks - [whatever else is between you are the server] - server's NIC - Server). Unless you're deploying this technology at all those points, the benefits cannot be that great, especially as it isn't that problematic to begin with unless you have a poor ISP/connect which this NIC will not resolve for you. The only claim I am interested in personally is what they mention about the Kernal, but I don't think that justifies the cost unless I can see similar benefits from it as a GPU or even in a PPU when used (I consider these similar products as this "NPU" does since both only provide benefits isolated to a segment of gaming - the Killer NIC obviously cannot increase FPS of a single player campaign for example, similar to a dedicated PPU really only benefits you in games with compatible physics but the PPU at least offers you something new/extra to your gaming experience you possible could not have [now] without it).
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram