VIA Nano whoops Intel's Atom (again) on video
By Thomas Ricker 
posted August 4th 2008 6:13AM
posted August 4th 2008 6:13AM
[Via UMPC Portal]
posted August 4th 2008 6:13AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
The article you link to actually shows that the Via processor uses significantly MORE power than the Atom, only that it's faster and compensates in that regard.
The question then becomes, do you need the extra performance? Because if you don't, the Atom is drawing significantly less power. If your CPU spends most of its' time idle, or you're not fully utilizing it (perhaps word processor or web browsing are good examples), then you're going to come out significantly ahead with the Atom.
The guy says "both processors are power efficient" and ofcourse is right,
BUT, forgets to mention that the nano draws something around 20W while the atom draws only 4W (under full load) which is a factor 4 more!
Unfortunately the performance of the nano is only a factor 1.3 better instead of a factor 4.
Still, the nano is a fantastic processor. and so is atom
Don't forget that the 45nm Core 2 Duo is so efficient, if their "mini CPU" was using 20w, that's not really efficient compared to the C2D. So for it to only draw 4w does impress me, and yes I didn't expect it to be "blazzing fast".
I'm sure performance per watt, the Atom destroys the Nano. Despite, they're both good CPUs but shouldn't be compared unless you take all factors into account (ex: battery life).
you are ungood at math.
Well, VIA's Nano might own Atom right now.
But Intel literally controls devtools market for Intel-based systems.
Turning few knobs here and there, adding couple of aggressive optimizations tuned for Atom's inner working - and VIA's Nano would be left in laying dust. Simply because VIA doesn't have its own compiler.
Oh yeah let's test the cpu with an I/O heavy test :\
Try HDD access, chipset load (which are mostly software drivers thus loading the CPU). This isn't comparing CPUs .. this is comparing netbooks...
Hmmm I am quite impressed with VIA. Just think of where they were several years ago. But all of you know Intel is at work tryin to trump it at this very moment. Are the VIA options cheaper? Then the bang for you buck AMD approach will server them well and most people won't even notice that the VIA is more power hungry for a nano chip. Rock on VIA.
Bite the dust? Intel never bits the dust, you know they are angrier than a hornets nest, and it's only a matter of time before an Atom 2 comes out.
See my respones to Booshak above please. Don't confuse TDP with total power draw, its not exactly the same. *rolls eyes*
The difference in perform is so huge it's obviously not the CPU to thank/blame. I'll put my money that the Via setup has a hardware decoder for video playback and the Intel setup has no hardware decoding so it's using the CPU.
Let's run an actual unarguable CPU benchmark, like SuperPI to compare the apples and oranges next time.
*no relation to the post*
Which one is smaller?
nano or atom?
Go figure.
Until AMD finally gets a competitor out the door I say GO VIA!!!
Hm. Just yesterday I was watching HD movie on my Eee 1000 connected through VGA to my TV with resolution set at something like 19** x 1080 and I had absolutely no problems doing do. Perhaps VIA HP is performing better because of small screen, but connect it to the big one and let's see.
I wont be celibrating for long over in the via camp, they better start thinking their next processor, because intel, knew the atom wasn't gonna be as powerful....heck the opted out of OOO processing, just to get a shorter launch date, the next atom sure as hell wont be a sleeper, and judging from intel's atom road map, I'd be R&D'ing to hell just to keep up with what intel's planning...
Atom 1.6ghz can only just manage 720p h264/vc1 (and cpu is near maxxed so it's a real battery drainer) - 1080p not a chance.
I can't wait to see this in the HP 2133!
This is marketing bullshit!!!
They run the Atom underclocked in powersafe mode with 1,2 GHz but don't say it, of course...
Here is a vid from JKK who runs the same vid at full CPU-speed:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=JVf3PtNF-j0&eurl=http://www.eeepcnews.de/2008/08/04/video-via-openbook-mit-13ghz-nano-cpu/
wow, way to go VIA!
I'm skeptical. Sure, the Via Nano performs well, but what's the battery drain and heat dissipation like when playing back 1080p HD content?
The Via C7M runs very hot compared to the Intel Atom and features worse battery life - of course the Nano is newer and hopefully better. But let's see some real-world usability tests!
For reference: http://www.jkontherun.com/2008/07/do-you-really-w.html
The EEE 701 will rule them all!!!
EEE 701 (with some mild auxillery upgrades - no core)
Stock @ 601Mhz
Oh, what's that.. Smooth 1080 HD Video on a celeron?! Run away :)
http://mnetcs.com/pers/video_004.mp4
/\ HD Video running smoothly on a Asus EEE 701
Granted this isn't scientific, I've added some shaky cam for that authentic, big foot effect ;)
Fail
programs running?
see the image
http://www.biovolts.com/imagens/fail.jpg
http://biovolts.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=452%3Aintel-atom-vs-via-nano--teste-duvidoso&catid=67%3Ahardware&Itemid=1
Great, now VIA thinks its performing better in the new industry of Netbooks.. .. Jeez.. someone get AMD to poke in on this.. perhaps something good might come out from them as well....
Cheers,
Nick
They don't mention RAM amounts or HDD speeds in this test. Those matter, too, among other things.
The EEE PC video stopped at the same spot every time...
very fishy
This is not a valid test. This guy below has a video showing the 1080p VC-1 video working just fine and there's a high-quality video of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVf3PtNF-j0