1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

VIA Brings Enhanced Windows 7 Desktop to Life with Power Efficient DX10.1 Chipset

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Dec 10, 2009.

  1. pr0n Inspector

    pr0n Inspector

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,334 (0.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    164
    I am unable to get excited over anything from VIA, it's just not possible.:laugh:
     
  2. DaJMasta

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    479 (0.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Location:
    Silver Spring, MD

    An EEE has a 36W power adapter so it can safely charge the battery and run at full load and maximum screen brightness and still be safely within it's limits. Even with the screen bright and the volume cranked you'd be hard pressed to get an EEEpc over 20W full load.

    The second sounds about right though.


    12W is only a good figure because of the computational power that provides. The original Atom platform used about that amount, but this nano and this igp can give quite tangible performance increases (30-50% with the CPU, probably more than 100% with the GPU) over the atom at the same power consumption.
     
  3. MrMilli

    MrMilli

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    216 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Location:
    Antwerp, Belgium
    S3 Chrome 500 series runs the shader domain around 40% faster than the base clock. So that would make around 700Mhz for this chipset.

    It's pretty easy to make a comparison:
    - The Chrome 540 (32 shaders) has similar performance to the HD 4350 (80 shaders) but is higher clocked
    - IGP 780G & 785G have 40 shaders and have the same performance
    - IGP 785G has similar performance to GF9300 IGP and GF9400 IGP is a bit faster (around 10%)
    - All IGP's have similar bandwidth at their disposal

    Taking into account that the Chrome 520 IGP has a 37.5% lower clock compared to the 540 but the same amount of shaders.
    Taking into account that the HD 4200 IGP has a 13% lower clock compared to the HD 4350 but half the amount of shaders.

    Just going by these numbers, the Chrome 520 IGP would be around 40% faster than the HD 4200 IGP. That would also mean faster than the GF9400 IGP.

    I know GPU performance is not easy math like i just did but my numbers do give a good indication of what to expect. I'm pretty sure it won't be slower than the 785G or GF9300IGP.
    nVidia's ION is even a bit lower clocked than the GF9300IGP (450/1100 vs 450/1200).

    A Via Nano 3000 + VN1000 combo would seriously outperform an Atom + ION combo at similar power levels. Let's just hope someone is brave enough to make it.
     
    Roph says thanks.
  4. kylzer

    kylzer New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    511 (0.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    78
    Location:
    192.168.1.1
    I see what you did there :roll:
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page