Its a VIA Nano 1.3GHz processor so the TDP is lower than Atoms... also to understand power as it affects battery life:
It is not only power draw needed to execute a task that is important but the time period of drawing that power while executing the task as well that will actually affect your battery life. So that you can know the total amount of energy drawn during the completion of the task.
Ryan Shrout the editor of PC Perspective actually did some sample tests of measuring power usage over time comparing the VIA Nano and Intel Atom:
“Using the same method to gauge the results of our CineBench 10 test, we find that the VIA Nano used 63,434 watt-seconds (Joules) of energy to render the scene while the Intel Atom used 65,893 watt-seconds (Joules) of energy - an advantage of 3.8% to the VIA CPU.
These kinds of power comparisons are incredibly insightful and you can clearly see how both teams of CPU designers have made trade offs for the either power consumption or speed. The VIA Nano L2100 is able to perform these tasks faster (by as much as 30% in some cases) while still using less total energy than Intel’s Atom. ”
Thank you Tim. It's nice to see an informed, knowledgeable post with figures and results as opposed to... well... nothing... anecdotal evidence at best
The Nano L2100 is a mini-desktop oriented chip with a TDP of 20W. The Atom draws 2.5W max, with the chipset drawing bout 5.5W max. The L2100 draws nearly 20W by itself...
If the TDP of the Nano in the vid featured here is 6W, since its clocked at 1.3GHz rather than 1.8Ghz of the L2100. That's still more than twice the TDP of the Atom, though to be fair its in the right ballpark now. But what's the TDP for the chipset?
And, c'mom .. video? That's the domain of the chipsets and the integrated video. CPU vs CPU, we've seen in the L2100 report that clock-for-clock the Nano is only about 5% faster. So 1.3Ghz vs 1.6Ghz Atom, Atom would be faster.
The chipset is, actually, a fair and valid line of attack for Via. The GMA9500 isn't the greatest, to put it mildly. If Via could provides a solid, low power chipset to go with the Nano it could do for Via what the 780G did for AMD.
However this is VIA. I don't have a lot of faith in their video hardware/drivers.
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 phone has 256MB of RAM and a 1GHz processor, which do the job reasonably well, though the Anna interface will likely leave something to be desired for many smartphone users.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
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.
Its a VIA Nano 1.3GHz processor so the TDP is lower than Atoms... also to understand power as it affects battery life:
It is not only power draw needed to execute a task that is important but the time period of drawing that power while executing the task as well that will actually affect your battery life. So that you can know the total amount of energy drawn during the completion of the task.
Ryan Shrout the editor of PC Perspective actually did some sample tests of measuring power usage over time comparing the VIA Nano and Intel Atom:
“Using the same method to gauge the results of our CineBench 10 test, we find that the VIA Nano used 63,434 watt-seconds (Joules) of energy to render the scene while the Intel Atom used 65,893 watt-seconds (Joules) of energy - an advantage of 3.8% to the VIA CPU.
These kinds of power comparisons are incredibly insightful and you can clearly see how both teams of CPU designers have made trade offs for the either power consumption or speed. The VIA Nano L2100 is able to perform these tasks faster (by as much as 30% in some cases) while still using less total energy than Intel’s Atom. ”
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=597&type=expert&pid=8
So in most “real world” usage scenarios… Nano also beats Atom with less power consumption.
Power consumption/TDP/ is a tricky area that most people don’t understand well.
Thank you Tim. It's nice to see an informed, knowledgeable post with figures and results as opposed to... well... nothing... anecdotal evidence at best
The Nano L2100 is a mini-desktop oriented chip with a TDP of 20W. The Atom draws 2.5W max, with the chipset drawing bout 5.5W max. The L2100 draws nearly 20W by itself...
If the TDP of the Nano in the vid featured here is 6W, since its clocked at 1.3GHz rather than 1.8Ghz of the L2100. That's still more than twice the TDP of the Atom, though to be fair its in the right ballpark now. But what's the TDP for the chipset?
And, c'mom .. video? That's the domain of the chipsets and the integrated video. CPU vs CPU, we've seen in the L2100 report that clock-for-clock the Nano is only about 5% faster. So 1.3Ghz vs 1.6Ghz Atom, Atom would be faster.
The chipset is, actually, a fair and valid line of attack for Via. The GMA9500 isn't the greatest, to put it mildly. If Via could provides a solid, low power chipset to go with the Nano it could do for Via what the 780G did for AMD.
However this is VIA. I don't have a lot of faith in their video hardware/drivers.
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.