VIA Nano and Intel's Atom benchmarked head-to-head

Netbooks based on VIA's Nano mobile processor aren't nearly as common as those based on Intel's Atom, but based on the benchmarking that's been going on recently, that's a shame, since the Nano appears to be much faster than the Atom 230. PC Perspective, Eee PC News, and Hot Hardware all ran some tests recently, and a 1.8GHz Nano L2100 with Chrome9 graphics was usually able to outperform a 1.6GHz Atom 230 with GMA950 graphics at everything from MP3 ripping to 3D benchmarking. Of course, that's not without a tradeoff -- the Nano was a bit more power-hungry, and the Atom's memory and graphics systems were occasionally faster than the Nano's. Still, it seems like the Nano has more raw horsepower than the Atom -- and it's pin-compatible with VIA's popular C7M, so hopefully we'll be seeing machines like HP's Mini-Note make the jump relatively soon.

Read - PC Perspective results
Read - Hot Hardware results
Read - Eee PC News results

[FelixDraconis Posted Aug 4th 2008 2:05PM]

Actually the best part about all these 'shenanigans' is that you get much more extensive reviews of the various parts and manufacturers (Intel and Via) will get tons of urging to be more competitive due to the interest in this area of computing (and free press).

Thus it's actually a win for the consumer, even if right now it just amounts to the simple fact that people are surprised that Via is doing well in this arena and like to root for the underdog.

Ultimately, the important thing is that we'll probably get a second generation pushed out faster due to the competition and a bit more focus on coming up with energy-saving ideas to beat the other 'team'. This will result in us getting better "laptop-replacing" solutions earlier rather than later.

[lemon8h8ead Posted Oct 13th 2008 11:10PM]

Reference: http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/nano/

The test was a bit unrealistic because the wrong Isaiah CPU (L2100 i.e. 1.8GHz) was used. The Nano L2200 runs at 1.6MHz and consumes far less power. That would have been a better comparator.