Something is definitely going awry with VIA's Nano platform: the company just lost
HP's Mini 1000 to Intel, and now Digitimes says that VIA and NVIDIA are backing out of their
plan to develop a netbook platform. Remember, Nano was
announced back in May, so it's a little odd that we haven't seen a
single shipping machine with the chip, even as VIA has hyped its
performance advantages over the ubiquitous Atom 230 -- the closest we've come is the
imini S1 in June, which has since disappeared. Now, we're always a little suspicious of Digitimes' anonymous reports, so nothing's written in stone, but things just seem pretty bleak 'round VIA way right now -- especially since it just
dropped out of the mobo biz entirely to focus on processors. Hopefully we'll see some good news in the form of shipping products soon.
[Via
Electronista]
posted Nov 4th 2008 4:51PM
alright . . . . who talked dirty to via again
This isn't a surprise for those who've followed the Nano's performance vs the Atom on online benchmarks. The Nano not only has a higher TDP, it doesn't have a good GPU to compete against even the anemic GMA950. In netbooks, graphic prowess is more important than CPU horses. You may not do video encodes on a nettop, but you'd want to watch Hulu in full-screen without stutter, and to have multiple tabs of video-heavy sites open at the same time.
The next big push will be on nettops, connecting to HDTVs. This'll have a lot bigger impact than netbooks. Hopefully, VIA--and especially AMD--will offer up competitive solutions on this front. Given the crappy Intel G45 chipset and its myriad problems, I'm hoping AMD will push heavily the 780G on the mini-ITX platform.
Don't the Nano chips use like 10 times the power of the Atom? I know they have better performance, but for a netbook, you really can't be sucking down that kind of juice.
Ironic, since VIA has usually been the power-sipping expert.
Remember that the Intel Atom is thrown on a 45nm process, versus the VIA's 65nm.. When that happens, it'll look somewhat nicer..
Also, it depends on what chipset they use. the Intel GMA950 (crap) uses about ~9-11watts of power and the Atom uses about 3w. Yes the VIA has a higher TDP, but doesn't mean it's consistently running at that wattage either.
Remember that the Intel Atom is thrown on a 45nm process, versus the VIA's 65nm.. When that happens, it'll look somewhat nicer..
Also, it depends on what chipset they use. the Intel GMA950 (crap) uses about ~9-11watts of power and the Atom uses about 3w. Yes the VIA has a higher TDP, but doesn't mean it's consistently running at that wattage either.
It's just a netbook.
There will be a nexus of netbook capability and Cell Phone/PDA. It won't be long. To some extent it's already here.
That's when i care about netbooks.
For reasons unknown i have faith in via
probably the same reason you have that gun in your mouth.
*Holds his breath
I will miss you when you suffocate. =)
Don't worry I will be in a better place joking around with George Carlin.
You and George Carlin hanging out in Hell ? LoL.
Man, things are just coming up Intel these days. Sure, they started making good processors again (I think we can all forget the P4 now), but AMD's having financial troubles and has yet to put forward a real competitor to the freshly 2-generation old Core 2 Duo/Quad/Extremes. Now things are looking bad for the only forthcoming competitor to the Atom. I guess good luck does come in 3s. I've long been a fan of Intel, but decreased competition is bad for everyone - prices go up and innovation goes down.
Its understandable that various companies don't want to compete in the netbook space, given that its largely focused on low-cost and might hurt their margins. So maybe it makes sense that AMD continues to ignore this space... but VIA? Huh? Isn't the low-cost space the only one they play in? And with netbooks making up 25% of Microsoft's OS shipments (sorry, can't find the reference now, heard it on a podcast...) they are obviously shipping in large numbers. Given that it seems foolish not to play in this space if you want to be involved in the future netbook/notebook market as it evolves.
Good move by NVidia. They're putting their money behind the MID and Smartphone platforms with TEGRA, which is an excellent decision.
Personally, I'd rather have the current VIA platform in a netbook than an Intel Atom with G45 chipset. Sure, at full throttle, the VIA probably uses around 6-10 W more than an "Intel Inside" netbook. However, you'll rarely run a netbook at full speed like that. Besides, since the VIA is around 20-40% faster, processes will require the cpu to run at full speed for less time.
At idle, the VIA and Intel use an equal amount of power (the VIA appears to use 1 or 2 W less in most comparisons), and if I'm surfing the net, then I have no need to worry about how much power my VIA uses.
The VIA runs faster than an Atom when you need the speed, and uses the same or less power when at idle. Doesn't sound too bad. Too bad Intel just seems to crush the competition regardless of who else makes a good product.
Something fairly big and bad must have happened, as this was not the way it was supposed to work out.
There was supposed to be at least a couple of flavors of the Nano, roughly speaking a netbook and a nettop version. The nettop version was the one that made the rounds of the hardware review sites, and, as a platform, came out quite competitively against the Atom in a desktop setting, mainly because the desktop Intel chipset was so power hungry. I don't think the downclocked netbook version of the Nano, and the corresponding chipset, was ever seen in the wild. I could be wrong. In any event, no netbook was ever produced, implying it just did not work as advertised.
Nothing new here folks, it is just Intel reeling its ugly anti-competitive head again in "convincing" Nvidia and others to dump the competition through outproducing to buy cheap in bulk and offering discounts at an initial loss for those switching platforms.
Because like the corporate saying goes "When the going gets tough, the tough get charitable."
What do you expected from a cpu (Nano) what isn't really better than years old Pentium-Ms? Hotter, bigger die (as being manufactured on 65nm vs 45nm), more expensive to make, lacks a robust chipset. Don't put 945 in that bad light either because as GSE variant consumes max 6W. It's too hard to realize that mayba VIA offering wasn't just competitive enough or there are severe production problems? VIA doesn't have a stellar records either, does it?
Do you like throwing out names that suite your opinion more then the facts?
I don't have the time to prove how wrong you are so here is a link: http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/via-cpu-isaiah.ars