Thanks for posting this! VIA keeps on impressing me. :)

whats the point of releasing a dual core NANO when the single core version has yet to make it to the market?:wtf:

Monkeywomanwhats the point of releasing a dual core NANO when the single core version has yet to make it to the market?:wtf:

www.google.com/products?q=VIA+NANO&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title

:confused:

Monkeywomanwhats the point of releasing a dual core NANO when the single core version has yet to make it to the market?:wtf:

umm the single core has been out for some time now

cdawallumm the single core has been out for some time now

i know it has, but the nano is supposed to take on the atom right? show me a netbook that has a nano in it. NONE, the nano is the successor to the C7 yet the C7 is still being used(HP mini note) and a couple others. my point is y hast it made it yet?

PrudentPrincesswww.google.com/products?q=VIA+NANO&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title

:confused:

umm no, those are mini itx boards with C7 cpus on them. the Via Nanos are these; (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_VIA_Nano_microprocessors )

Nano's power output is much higher than Atom's so I don't see it really competing with it in netbooks. In reviews, it appeared to be similar to that of a Pentium M and the PM blows it away on speed.

And VIA's chipsets are usually not so hot in the IGP dept.

Speaking of VIA, why arent we seeing any more chipsets for intel and AMD lately. There were some for AM2/early 775 but no more. Anyone heard of them making something for 1160/1366 and AM3?

well, a dual core low voltage, low power draw, low heat , not the top performance but good solid performance for a low cost file server or a netpc it will be a selling product

Monkeywomani know it has, but the nano is supposed to take on the atom right? show me a netbook that has a nano in it. NONE, the nano is the successor to the C7 yet the C7 is still being used(HP mini note) and a couple others. my point is y hast it made it yet?

really now you know whats funny once you add in the shitty chipset intel puts it on Via wins in idle and looses by a huge 6~10w in load but thats with a much better IGP than GMA950 could dream of being


enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTUzNSwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==


www.trustedreviews.com/cpu-memory/review/2008/08/15/VIA-Nano-vs-Intel-Atom/p1

and read this before you say silly things about power consumption yea the Atom might be better in 480p movies but it cant play 720P or 1080P while the atom can and when you do daily tasks the Via will use THE SAME AMOUNT OF POWER because it does them in less time!

www.trustedreviews.com/cpu-memory/review/2008/08/15/VIA-Nano-vs-Intel-Atom/p5

here would be the via designed UMPC

www.engadget.com/2008/06/03/first-via-nano-based-netbook-spotted/

swaayeNano's power output is much higher than Atom's so I don't see it really competing with it in netbooks. In reviews, it appeared to be similar to that of a Pentium M and the PM blows it away on speed.

And VIA's chipsets are usually not so hot in the IGP dept.

really are you comparing the garbage GMA950 to Via's not to mention these are super low watt designs

the Via is still more recent that the intel there will be netbooks released with them in it (the ECS netbook off the top of my head) just give them time right now companies are seeing the C7m's are holding up against the Atom. give them time they will rebuild the netbooks with Nano's in them

oh and to top it all off the Via Nano can run crysis. albiet not on the integrated video but the atom cant even think about doing that!

www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/video-mini-itx-2-0-with-via-nano-really-does-play-crysis/

cdawallreally are you comparing the garbage GMA950 to Via's not to mention these are super low watt designs

GMA 950 in 945G is superior to anything VIA has ever produced. By a long shot. As sad as that may be. There's nothing wrong with 945G other than it being rather warm for a netbook.

Nano isn't that exciting really. It's not in the same power envelope as Atom and speed isn't a consideration for a netbook CPU really. Atom with a better chipset is the way to go. I have an Eee900 with a Celeron M and would not want something hotter! Cooler is what we need. And no subpar VIA IGP technology.

swaayeGMA 950 in 945G is superior to anything VIA has ever produced.

Ah, but NVIDIA has a deal with VIA to make GeForce embedded chipsets for them. GeForce in those chipsets is superior to anything Intel has ever produced.

go via... come on competition!

swaayeGMA 950 in 945G is superior to anything VIA has ever produced. By a long shot. As sad as that may be. There's nothing wrong with 945G other than it being rather warm for a netbook.

Nano isn't that exciting really. It's not in the same power envelope as Atom and speed isn't a consideration for a netbook CPU really. Atom with a better chipset is the way to go. I have an Eee900 with a Celeron M and would not want something hotter! Cooler is what we need. And no subpar VIA IGP technology.

Sorry mate, but a fairly recent article from tweaktown (yes... I know, i had to keep pressing the back button even attempt to read it) completely disproves that the via chip is garbage. It was superior in video playback and even in a game (why they chose crysis is beyond me). Not to mention having higher benchmarking results, in this case, lower power consumption, and producing far less heat.

To be honest, I have no idea the performance of IGP's or care, but I already hated the decision to use the hot and old G945 chipset, and this proves its faults in the low-power segment.

www.tweaktown.com/articles/1540/1/intel_atom_vs_via_nano_platform_comparo/index.html

swaayeGMA 950 in 945G is superior to anything VIA has ever produced. By a long shot. As sad as that may be. There's nothing wrong with 945G other than it being rather warm for a netbook.

Nano isn't that exciting really. It's not in the same power envelope as Atom and speed isn't a consideration for a netbook CPU really. Atom with a better chipset is the way to go. I have an Eee900 with a Celeron M and would not want something hotter! Cooler is what we need. And no subpar VIA IGP technology.

do you not know how to read the Via is a better setup @ idle and since the cpu is more powerful it wont load as high hence lower temps lower power usage read the links i posted it shows the via using the same amount of power

ascstingerSorry mate, but a fairly recent article from tweaktown (yes... I know, i had to keep pressing the back button even attempt to read it) completely disproves that the via chip is garbage. It was superior in video playback and even in a game (why they chose crysis is beyond me). Not to mention having higher benchmarking results, in this case, lower power consumption, and producing far less heat.

To be honest, I have no idea the performance of IGP's or care, but I already hated the decision to use the hot and old G945 chipset, and this proves its faults in the low-power segment.

www.tweaktown.com/articles/1540/1/intel_atom_vs_via_nano_platform_comparo/index.html

@swaaye if you honestly think GMA950 is more powerful the unichrome II you need more help than anyone here can give you read this link and notice how your wrong unichrome II toasts GMA950

cdawalldo you not know how to read the Via is a better setup @ idle and since the cpu is more powerful it wont load as high hence lower temps lower power usage read the links i posted it shows the via using the same amount of power

My EeePC 900 with a Celeron M uses 15W at the wall. That's <1/3 the use of the desktops at that link. The EeeBox with the Atom 1.6GHz is about the same on the power use. My EeePC has the Intel 910GML chipset while the EeeBox uses 945GME. You see, they aren't that terrible on the power use after all, in these low-power variants.

You see, these little desktop boards are not very efficient. It's probably a combo of the power supply being inefficient and the board itself having more components and less of a focus on mobile-level power efficiency. The Atom CPU used in netbooks is a ~4W CPU when loaded, and like 500mW while idle. Nano isn't even close to that. Nano uses more than Celeron M ULV, which is a 5W CPU under load.

The top Nano CPU (fastest) is a 25W CPU. That is the same as a Pentium M or Core Solo, and those are better CPUs than Nano. Hell, a Core 2 Solo that would annihilate Nano is only a 5.5W CPU. You see, only Nano's lowest power models (slowest) are competitive with Atom on the power front and I'd bet that Nano becomes slower than Atom at those clock speeds.

I want to see what Intel's Poulsbo chipset looks like when it comes out. That's the one with the north and southbridge integrated along with a PowerVR GPU. It is designed to go with Atom.

swaayeMy EeePC 900 with a Celeron M uses 15W at the wall. That's <1/3 the use of the desktops at that link. The EeeBox with the Atom 1.6GHz is about the same on the power use. My EeePC has the Intel 910GML chipset while the EeeBox uses 945GME. You see, they aren't that terrible on the power use after all, in these low-power variants.

You see, these little desktop boards are not very efficient. It's probably a combo of the power supply being inefficient and the board itself having more components and less of a focus on mobile-level power efficiency. The Atom CPU used in netbooks is a ~4W CPU when loaded, and like 500mW while idle. Nano isn't even close to that. Nano uses more than Celeron M ULV, which is a 5W CPU under load.

The top Nano CPU (fastest) is a 25W CPU. That is the same as a Pentium M or Core Solo, and those are better CPUs than Nano. Hell, a Core 2 Solo that would annihilate Nano is only a 5.5W CPU. You see, only Nano's lowest power models (slowest) are competitive with Atom on the power front and I'd bet that Nano becomes slower than Atom at those clock speeds.

I want to see what Intel's Poulsbo chipset looks like when it comes out. That's the one with the north and southbridge integrated along with a PowerVR GPU. It is designed to go with Atom.

But you are still completely missing the point. The Atom cpu by itself may use less power than Nano, but the platform as a whole does not. The 945 chipset negates most of the power advantage the Atom has. Future chipsets don't play in here, until they are actually released.

The problem with the Nano, is not the Nano itself, but the LEGACY of previous overhyped low-power CPUs from VIA. I remember buying a mini-ITX system based on the EPIA Mii-12000 www.via.com.tw/en/products/mainboards/motherboards.jsp?motherboard_id=202

It was so totally terrible that it was pretty much useless as a nettop and had to be relegated to a low access NAS device.

It was replaced by a mini-ITX Pentium M 1.5Ghz which BLEW the Via EPIA away. It wasnt a question of %'s better, but multiples better.

That is what has killed the take up of the Nano... just disbelief. Intel has delivered with the Pentium M and Core 2, and there is a sense of trust with the "Atom" that Via cannot gain with the Nano due to the lack of trust from the EPIA M, Mii and the C3 which were all very lackluster if not downright rubbish. (Old pentium 3's are faster).

If this chart is correct (ignore the 9800GX2 result) then Via are on to a winner with the Nano.

images.tweaktown.com/imagebank/avn101_test7.gif

swaayeMy EeePC 900 with a Celeron M uses 15W at the wall. That's <1/3 the use of the desktops at that link. The EeeBox with the Atom 1.6GHz is about the same on the power use. My EeePC has the Intel 910GML chipset while the EeeBox uses 945GME. You see, they aren't that terrible on the power use after all, in these low-power variants.

You see, these little desktop boards are not very efficient. It's probably a combo of the power supply being inefficient and the board itself having more components and less of a focus on mobile-level power efficiency. The Atom CPU used in netbooks is a ~4W CPU when loaded, and like 500mW while idle. Nano isn't even close to that. Nano uses more than Celeron M ULV, which is a 5W CPU under load.

The top Nano CPU (fastest) is a 25W CPU. That is the same as a Pentium M or Core Solo, and those are better CPUs than Nano. Hell, a Core 2 Solo that would annihilate Nano is only a 5.5W CPU. You see, only Nano's lowest power models (slowest) are competitive with Atom on the power front and I'd bet that Nano becomes slower than Atom at those clock speeds.

I want to see what Intel's Poulsbo chipset looks like when it comes out. That's the one with the north and southbridge integrated along with a PowerVR GPU. It is designed to go with Atom.

does your EEEPC have a 150GB 10K raptor, full size DDR2 and a VGA card? maybe just maybe thats why the desktop versions draw more.

yet again Nano+chipset draws the same as Atom+chipset which is why i say go for the Via its a better choice its more powerful (spec wise) and the entire box will use the same amount of power

Desktop HDDs draw about 8W, fyi. Unless they're seeking.

You see, I'm not interested in desktops based on this hardware. I want netbooks that run cool. Atom is a 2-4W CPU that needs a better chipset, that's why I want to see Poulsbo. Nano is a 5-25W CPU. The 5W 1GHz Nano is not going to outperform an Atom CPU. I also doubt that VIA's chipset is lower power than 945GME or 910GML and definitely have doubts about their IGP doing 3D well at all. I have much more interest in Poulsbo with that PowerVR GPU and integrated southbridge.

Nano is slower than a 2005 Pentium M and shares its TDP! What is it about that CPU that causes thrills? I'd rather see AMD come along with 740G/780G and something to stomp out VIA Nano. Wouldn't hard considering all they need to do is match that high 25W TDP. I don't doubt that an undervolted K8 design could do that.

Neither AMD or VIA have a 2-4W CPU though so they're out of competition with Atom in a way, especially once Intel gets a matching chipset and maybe even 32nm going. Intel wants to compete with MIPS and Arm chips in embedded devices one day. Those CPUs are not even 1W chips, but Atom definitely has advantages if Intel can get the power even lower with their manufacturing advantages.

swaayeDesktop HDDs draw about 8W, fyi. Unless they're seeking.

You see, I'm not interested in desktops based on this hardware. I want netbooks that run cool. Atom is a 2-4W CPU that needs a better chipset, that's why I want to see Poulsbo. Nano is a 5-25W CPU. The 5W 1GHz Nano is not going to outperform an Atom CPU. I also doubt that VIA's chipset is lower power than 945GME or 910GML and definitely have doubts about their IGP doing 3D well at all. I have much more interest in Poulsbo with that PowerVR GPU and integrated southbridge.

Nano is slower than a 2005 Pentium M and shares its TDP! What is it about that CPU that causes thrills? I'd rather see AMD come along with 740G/780G and something to stomp out VIA Nano. Wouldn't hard considering all they need to do is match that high 25W TDP. I don't doubt that an undervolted K8 design could do that.

Neither AMD or VIA have a 2-4W CPU though so they're out of competition with Atom in a way, especially once Intel gets a matching chipset and maybe even 32nm going. Intel wants to compete with MIPS and Arm chips in embedded devices one day. Those CPUs are not even 1W chips, but Atom definitely has advantages if Intel can get the power even lower with their manufacturing advantages.

all your doubts and maybe's make you sound like a moron honestly. could you pull some numbers or find something to support your arguement b/c you really have nothing but your own opinions right now

Ok!

Tech Report
Via's Nano L2100 takes on Intel's Atom 230







Take note of the difference between idle and load for these CPUs. Atom barely moves. That's the ~4W TDP there. And also notice that the Pentium M has higher idle but its load is still below Nano. Heh.




So maybe now you see how Nano isn't all that revolutionary. It doesn't have any advantages. If you want speed and low power consumption, even an olden Pentium M can do you better. If you want absolute minimum power consumption, Atom is superior assuming you also get a low-power chipset and overall design like that of the netbooks.

still pointing out that the atom is outperformed enough that the Via beats it in the power consumption arena.

and the sarcastic BS comment about how smart i am? really what are you 3? your argueing with someone who has posted shitloads more than you and has 200 times as many thanked posts?

oh and were are the 3D benches? just wondering if you can support that claim yet

WhiteLotusgo via... come on competition!

+1 this is totally 1337 i mean wow via is coming up fast now if only they can hold their position :D

Solaris17+1 this is totally 1337 i mean wow via is coming up fast now if only they can hold their position :D

hopefully this can kickstart a 3 horse race in the CPU areas and add a buket load of competition to both AMD and Intel. Go VIA, go!