VIA Nano trounces Intel Atom in HD video playback? Not quite.

As a recent VIA promo video would have you believe, the company's lightweight Nano processor is capable of soundly beating Intel's competing Atom CPU when it comes to playing HD video. Or is it? Not willing to take VIA's word at face value, jkkmobile decided to try out the very same 1080p video on an Eee PC with the same Atom processor that VIA used in its test and -- surprise, surprise -- they found that the video played just fine. Now, it is entirely possible that the Nano can beat the Atom in playing video under certain circumstances (and given the raw benchmark numbers, that even seems likely), but when it comes to basic HD video playback, it seems that the Atom can at least hold its own. Head on past the break to see for yourself.

[rock99rock @ Aug 4th 2008 3:37PM]

Could be foulplay, could be a shitty implementation of the Atom on a different device. Either way, they BOTH show a stutter every now and then so are not recommended for HD video playback.

[madgamer @ Aug 4th 2008 4:04PM]

I agree, the stuff I had read said that in real tests, both could do 720p playback but 1080 was pretty much a choppy mess.

[The Dude @ Aug 4th 2008 4:50PM]

Agreed. We need to know what codecs were used, what processes were running in the background, etc in ANY comparison. And of note, jkkmobile was running WMP 10 and not 11 like VIA's demonstration.

[Johan S @ Aug 4th 2008 5:11PM]

I agree .. but still maybe they're good for standard definition movies? At least the Nano should be able to do those without any dropped or frozen frames.

[dten @ Aug 4th 2008 7:51PM]

That video is flawed. The EEE PC 1000h in Super Performance Mode runs the video fluidly even in FULL screen mode. Don't trust that guy, I just tested it myself on my EEE PC 1000h

[heffeque @ Aug 4th 2008 8:34PM]

What would you want 1080p on a 10 inch screen that doesn't have that resolution in the first place? Ok, video output, but seriously, those small laptops aren't meant for HD stuff.

[Michael @ Aug 4th 2008 3:39PM]

So these new Atom chips don't seem that bad. I mean compared to a 3 or 4 year old machine that runs at 1.6GHz, that would probably fumble really bad with full HD video

[Lazarpandar @ Aug 4th 2008 6:24PM]

I don't understand! You went from funny pink dinosaur to annoying pink dinosaur so quickly...

:(

[Lazarpandar @ Aug 4th 2008 7:16PM]

I didn't reply to this comment! I swear!
I meant to reply to the pink dinosaur one below :(

[Pochi @ Aug 4th 2008 3:41PM]

I "Hate" my Yellow Teeth

[eric @ Aug 4th 2008 3:44PM]

Thank youuu.
I thought I was the only one entertained by that.

[phanbouy @ Aug 4th 2008 3:46PM]

http://adblockplus.org

[Pochi @ Aug 4th 2008 5:36PM]

@phanbouy

If that program works so well, why do you know what we're talking about?

[phanbouy @ Aug 4th 2008 5:42PM]

because i'm just wily and clever enough to surmise you're talking about banner ads? good try though

[Pochi @ Aug 4th 2008 5:56PM]

Defensive, sarcastic insults that end in "nice try." I do like how you threw in the word "surmise" but completely ignored punctuation and capitalization.

The entire comment had all of the makings of a 13 year old trying to sound older. And smarter.

Maybe 14.

[JTM @ Aug 4th 2008 6:29PM]

What good is whining going to do? If you hate your Yellow Teeth so much, why don't you do something about it? I mean, other than advertise on Engadget. No, I'm not going to click your link. Probably just leads to more whining.

[Loonie @ Aug 4th 2008 6:36PM]

Pochi, your initial comment was funny, but you've let success go to your head. Chill.

[lukas88 @ Aug 4th 2008 7:12PM]

at the risk of ruining it, will someone explain the joke

[Pochi @ Aug 4th 2008 8:46PM]

@Loonie

Sorry man. Phanbouy just makes me very sad.

[phanbouy @ Aug 4th 2008 9:19PM]

awww poor Pochi. i wasn't raining on your little joke parade, simply inserting a link for a firefox add-in that, actually, does work, but then you had to turn it into a pissing match. how pathetic

[Pochi @ Aug 4th 2008 11:23PM]

"how pathetic"

...13.

[Benhur @ Aug 4th 2008 3:43PM]

VIA just took a serioues credability hit. shame on you.

[octoberasian @ Aug 4th 2008 3:44PM]

Wasn't this posted earlier? O.o

http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/04/via-nano-whoops-intels-atom-again-on-video/

This was posted by Thomas Ricker.

[ds @ Aug 4th 2008 4:16PM]

wow.

[Techie @ Aug 4th 2008 3:44PM]

How much more or less are the Nano?

[Benhur @ Aug 4th 2008 3:45PM]

I just voted you up for that

[Benhur @ Aug 4th 2008 3:47PM]

That was a reply to Pochi of course, oh crapy comment system

[ShadowKain @ Aug 4th 2008 3:47PM]

@Behhur

Shame on you? Sounds like they are a little more evenly matched, and if you did the research the total power draw during these exercises and other tests showed that the VIA processor pulled less total* power than the ATOM. Each processer sacrifices something for the other, but VIA did not lose credibility on ONE small test that you and your geek friends could reproduce in a barn. Shame on you*

[andres @ Aug 4th 2008 3:49PM]

what would geeks be doing in a barn

[phanbouy @ Aug 4th 2008 3:53PM]

"what would geeks be doing in a barn"

hey if it's good enough for Dwight K. Shrute...

[The Apple @ Aug 5th 2008 3:56AM]

@Phanbouy,

Get out of my Offive.

"inside joke"

[Benhur @ Aug 4th 2008 3:49PM]

and so was that one
(well, that was actually supposed to be a reply to myself)

[Lowest Ranked @ Aug 4th 2008 4:10PM]

You have got to be the biggest failaholic I've seen all year.

[phanbouy @ Aug 4th 2008 4:11PM]

he can't compete with Steffen Jobbs

[ShadowKain @ Aug 4th 2008 3:49PM]

Im sick of stupid people on here. That was the engadget test, the first test. Now, listen children, this is ANOTHER test by jkkmobile. Crappy that they had to re-run a similar topic, but wow does you mom tie your shoes too?

[Lowest Ranked @ Aug 4th 2008 4:11PM]

No need. Your mom usually offers to tie them.

[phanbouy @ Aug 4th 2008 4:14PM]

SK, are you mad as hell and not going to take this anymore?

[Esteban @ Aug 4th 2008 6:27PM]

@phanbouy

I can't even begin to describe how tired I am getting of looking at your screen name and ridiculously unintelligent comments.

[Loonie @ Aug 4th 2008 6:39PM]

Esteban: Thank goodness you came along with your intelligent post to tell us all!

[phanbouy @ Aug 4th 2008 8:35PM]

@Esteban

I can't begin to tell you how little of a shit I give what you think.

[Ian @ Aug 4th 2008 4:08PM]

This is apples to oranges!
The current Atom CPU trounces VIA in terms of its LOW power consumption and performances taks equally as well.
A faster Atom CPU will be rolled out soon and it likely performance tasks "better" also likely at a higher power drain than the first Intel Atom chipset.

[phanbouy @ Aug 4th 2008 4:15PM]

numbers and source or your post is conjecture

[Alex @ Aug 4th 2008 3:57PM]

So not only was the marketing video dodgily produced it was also based around a false concept? They should sack the entire marketing team involved at VIA.

[Ivan @ Aug 4th 2008 4:08PM]

Well, in the promo video, they were using WMP 11 while the guy in this computer is using WMP 10. Do you think there could be such a performance hit between the 2 versions of WMP?

[caramelzappa @ Aug 4th 2008 4:13PM]

What's the point of playing a 1080p video on a screen that isn't even 720p?

[ds @ Aug 4th 2008 4:19PM]

To test the hardware..... specifically the processor/chipset.

[Nihility @ Aug 4th 2008 5:50PM]

You can hook it up to a TV. BAM! Portable media player.

[John Doe @ Aug 4th 2008 4:13PM]

aren't these the processors meant for low-end work like surfing the web and working on office apps? running HD movies on EEE pc and acer one would be so cool

[Nick @ Aug 4th 2008 4:19PM]

I personally tried this on my EEE PC 1000H this morning, with WMP 11, and it failed miserably. The 720p runs fine, but the 1080p is skiptastic crap.

Maybe it does much better on WMP 10, or maybe the white plastic helps the PC run cooler than the black? :-)

Hating to commence in 3...2...1...

[Kald @ Aug 4th 2008 4:31PM]

Exact same results here on my 1000H with WMP11, but I can play a 1080p movie in Media Player Classic with only a few hiccups.