http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/ Engadget Comments for VIA Nano and Intel's Atom benchmarked head-to-head http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 1:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 1:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/
VIA Nano™
L2200
1.6GHz
800MHz
NanoBGA2
65nm
100mW

As opposed to the 500mW rating carried by the 2100 at 1.8GHz.

Maybe it was supposed to be a demo of flagship versus flagship though in which case I believe the current top speed model is the 1.6.]]>Jul 29th 2008 1:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 2:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 2:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 2:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/
yep, the VIA used about 40% more power at load, but their power consumption at idle was about identical. if these super-duper power saving features VIA's touting are all that, we might find real life battery drain for average use to be on par (what should've really been tested)]]>Jul 29th 2008 2:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/
from the article: "Intel's part has an obvious advantage, consuming 19 fewer watts than the Nano under load, but remember the Nano is 1.8GHz, 65nm part, while the Atom is a 1.6GHz, 45nm part. If / when VIA is able to transition the Nano to a more advanced 45nm process, its power consumption should be reduced significantly."

19 / 45 = 42%. math is guud.]]>Jul 29th 2008 2:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Ok, lets compare the Atom with it's Eee predecessor, the Celeron-M.
At 1.6GHz, the Atom runs at neary twice the speed of the 900MHz Celeron-M. Does the Atom offer twice the performance? Nope. There are plenty of benchmarks out there that show that the Atom only offers marginal performance increases over the Celeron-M. If the Celeron-M was clocked to 1.6GHz, it would spank the Atom. Power consuption and heat dissapation are a different story, but you wated to compare 'like with like'.
With all the different processor technologies out there, clock speed really is no means of comparison.]]>Jul 29th 2008 6:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/
"The VIA system uses 17.4 more watts while under load than the Intel system. That means if they are under load for one second, the VIA system has used 17.4 more watt-seconds than the Intel. On the other hand, the Intel only uses 0.9 more watts under load than the VIA uses when idle. So, if the VIA works for one second, then drops back to idle while the Intel is still working to complete the task, it would take 18.33 more seconds before their total power usage becomes the same (17.4 + (-0.9 * 18.33) == 0).

This means that to use the same amount of power over the long term, the VIA has to be able to complete tasks in ~5% of the time that the Intel takes. Put another way, the Intel would take 19 times as long to finish any task.

But, their own graphs show that the Intel system only takes about 2 times as long (at most) to finish tasks. So, there's no way that the VIA uses less energy over the long haul, but that's what they claim.

Their problem is that they are comparing the total power used by the VIA system only while "active" on the task, and not looking at the power that the VIA uses on idle while the Intel is still completing the task. This is like saying that as soon as you finish that task, you immediately power off (or drop to standby)."]]>Jul 29th 2008 8:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 30th 2008 10:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 1:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 1:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/
Although you are right that the manufacturing process play a good part in term of power consumption, the design is the key. The Atom simpler design consume a lot less then the Nano superscalar out-of-order design.

Another advantage of the Atom is also the cost. Like you mention their 45 nm process help them keep the cost down as there are more die per wafer but there is also the 300mm wafer and the small size of the chip that helps keep the production cost down.]]>Jul 29th 2008 2:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 1:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 1:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 1:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 2:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 2:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 8:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 1:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 1:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/
I would love to buy the HP Mini-Note, but with a more powerful processor, the Nano looks to be the ticket! ]]>Jul 29th 2008 2:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 1:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/video-mini-itx-2-0-with-via-nano-really-does-play-crysis/]]>Jul 29th 2008 3:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 2:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/
Don't you think that might be just a little too much? ]]>Jul 29th 2008 2:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 4:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 2:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 2:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 2:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 2:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 3:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/
I don't want to see that at all. The Nano's TDP maxes out at 25W, the current C7-M inside it hits 8W and the Intel Atom is 2.6W. Putting a Nano in the HP Mini-note (all things being equal) would drop the useful run-time to maybe 90 minutes on the 3-cell battery and 3 hours on the 6-cell battery. This CPU isn't meant for netbooks...]]>Jul 29th 2008 3:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 3:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 3:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 4:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/
Regarding the power consumption difference, I get the impression from the articles that the power under load discrepancy is not all that significant if you consider that the Nano will be under load less time since it is a faster processor:

"The Nano uses more power at load than the Intel Atom CPU does but it is also a much faster platform overall...if you need a low power part that performs well then the Nano is for you but if need the absolute lowest power consumption and can give a little back in performance then the Atom will fit your design nicely."

However, the real test is in a mobile device on battery power. I sure would like to see the battery life comparison.]]>Jul 29th 2008 4:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 5:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/
*The CPU wars are over. Design is king*]]>Jul 29th 2008 7:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 30th 2008 2:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 11:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 29th 2008 11:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/
Its a clear win for the Atom, trying to fudge the issue by calculating the "energy consumed" over the time the job takes to complete is a selective criteria at best, bogus at worst. Who only has the PC running only when they have a 100% encoding job, turning it off the second it finishes?

No, you leave the machine running, and most people most of the time have the CPU running at idle or close to it. Atom platform consumes a little less power... and the mini-ITX test hides the difference on a large baseline... on a netbook drawing only 5-6W total, the 1-2W difference will translate into significant difference in battery life.

Second you are interested in what happens when you run a load, be it some encoding, or more typically, a movie or something. The atom N270 has a TDP of 2.5 W, so even 100% loaded its only going to produce less than 3W heat. The VIA Nano, in contrast, is going to spike to nearly 20W! Not only will the battery life be in the toilet, there are huge issues with heatsinking, fan noise and so forth. While its ok for a mini-ITX SFF PC, putting one into a Netbook like the hp 2133 doesn't make sense.

For years VIA had in the C7 CPU something that was comparable to a Pentium II mmx. Now, with the Nano, they seem to have taken a credible stab at replicating the Pentium M. Its a nice step up, but still years out of date.

All Intel has to do is put out a very slightly higher clocked Atom to completely spank the Nano. Or they could do as they are, and release the dual core N330. Still running under the Nano in both idle and load power, it will completely outclass it on any multithreaded apps.

]]>Jul 30th 2008 2:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/
Nano is integrating Southbridge functions, hence it does not need one. The Nano L2100 (1.8GHz) peaks at 25watt and the 1.6GHz model peaks at 17watt.

So, if we compare the two platforms (not processors alone, because it doesn't make any sense) at the same clock speed, the wattage difference is too small to worth mentioning and the rest of the benchmark should be identical.]]>Jul 30th 2008 4:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/
Nano is integrating Southbridge functions, hence it does not need one. The Nano L2100 (1.8GHz) peaks at 25watt and the 1.6GHz model peaks at 17watt.

So, if we compare the two platforms (not processors alone, because it doesn't make any sense) at the same clock speed, the wattage difference is too small to worth mentioning and the rest of the benchmark should be identical.]]>Jul 30th 2008 4:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/
Nano is integrating Southbridge functions, hence it does not need one. The Nano L2100 (1.8GHz) peaks at 25watt and the 1.6GHz model peaks at 17watt.

So, if we compare the two platforms (not processors alone, because it doesn't make any sense) at the same clock speed, the wattage difference is too small to worth mentioning and the rest of the benchmark should be identical.]]>Jul 30th 2008 4:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/
"For our MP3 encoding test, the VIA Nano processor used a total of 37,323 watt-seconds (Joules) of energy while the Intel Atom processor used 38,290 watt-seconds (Joules) of energy. That is a difference of just 2.5% indicating that even though the Atom processor is slower, it's not that much less efficient than VIA's Nano."

hence in power consumption over a given task, NANO is better and idling with comparable power consumption. IMHO, NANO beats ATOM hands down.]]>Jul 30th 2008 8:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/Jul 31st 2008 11:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/via-nano-and-intels-atom-benchmarked-head-to-head/
I'm so tired of all the propaganda spinneroo shenanigans nowadays. There's no point in reading anything purporting to be news anymore.]]>Aug 3rd 2008 6:05PM