Nano crushes Atom

[jcool]

There is some truth to that. Although, X61 > X60 anyday

Perkam

In your dreams
My pimped-up X60 kicks the X61's butt with its 2GB CL4 MDT ram and Seagate Momentus 7200.2 hdd

Anyway, back to topic...

[JumpingJack]

Well .... Ryan Stroud of PC Per and Marco of HotHardware were kind enough to email me back and specify their PSUs.... PCPer used an 750W silverstone and Hothardware used a whopping 1000 W Ultra ... so that pretty much explains why HHW was much too high.

[JumpingJack]

I think 55watt is to much for an Atom at full load. VR-zone managed to pull only 39,8 watts.
Anyway I'm going to test Atom power consumption myself.

Yeah ... see my just prior post.

I have also measured just the consmuption of the board and took the HD's and other periphrials out of the equation and then used the efficiency calibration to estimate the actual load that Atom is pulling:

- Idle measured = 25.4 W, correcting for PSU efficiency = 18.5 W
- Load measured = 27.1 W, correcting for PSU efficiency = 19.7 W

I would recommend the Sparkle PSU 220W 80+ FlexATX that I used in my measurements, or you could do a DC to DC converter -- a link I provided earlier.

Jack

[ToTTenTranz]

I'm sorry but in my book, both platforms suck. 0 performance and yet rather high power consumption.

Again, the Atom N-series is designed to be dirt-cheap, and it does that very well. Intel is just taking the first batch of lower binned Atoms and selling them for netbook and nettop designs.

This is not a low-power champion or a performance champion. This is a price/functionality champion. For the first time we're seeing sub-400$/300€ netbooks with enough performance and battery life for internet browsing and multimedia playing.

If you want to compare power consumption, wait for the first Centrino Atom MIDs (Atom Z + Poulsbo) and then you will see how power efficient this platform can be.

[JumpingJack]

Again, the Atom N-series is designed to be dirt-cheap, and it does that very well. Intel is just taking the first batch of lower binned Atoms and selling them for netbook and nettop designs.

This is not a low-power champion or a performance champion. This is a price/functionality champion. For the first time we're seeing sub-400$/300€ netbooks with enough performance and battery life for internet browsing and multimedia playing.

If you want to compare power consumption, wait for the first Centrino Atom MIDs (Atom Z + Poulsbo) and then you will see how power efficient this platform can be.

This is the idea I got from what this board is... I personally picked up the atom board because it was a 70 buck board that can function well as a NAS without chewing clawing up a lot of power.

[informal]

Jack check out the Ars technica review..They used 250W PSU,and the numbers are even better for Nano(compared to Atom).

[JumpingJack]

Jack check out the Ars technica review..They used 250W PSU,and the numbers are even better for Nano(compared to Atom).

I did... and I searched for the efficiency on that PSU... at full load it is 72% but nothing at 10% of it's rate power, it is also a discontinued PSU and I cannot find any numbers on it.

At these powers (i.e. load), there is a huge discrepancy between the different reviews that have popped up. Most all I can explain with the efficiency argument. The Ars numbers have me a bit perplexed, but then again they used a pretty low end PSU.... I have another PSU coming in the mail Friday, this one is 96% efficient at 20 W so I can remeasure. But there is no doubt, I am getting much lower power when I use the Sparkle 220W 80+ psu.

It will take much more work to understand the discrepancies...

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2326852,00.asp here is another example, they use a 120 W PSU (again, a no-name brand that I cannot find efficiency numbers for) ... but their benchs also show Atom winning performance overall. I have only read a handful of reviews, but the numbers are all over the place.... which is weird, because the configuration (HW wise) is so fixed. They should be coming in better grouped.

[PetNorth]

LOL funny "review" there...

From a perfomance view, it is in full contradiction with any other review out there. Look at Cinebench numbers and compare with http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15204/8

Atom is in line; but Nano, in Extremetech, must be running at 500mhz LOL

My God... what a crap "review"

[JumpingJack]

LOL funny "review" there...

From a perfomance view, it is in full contradiction with any other review out there. Look at Cinebench numbers and compare with http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15204/8

Atom is in line; but Nano, in Extremetech, must be running at 500mhz LOL

My God... what a crap "review"

There are contradictions all over

[Sapo84]

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15204/9
That's incredible, a pentium m 760 is both faster and more power efficient than the nano
I really hope that Via will pair the Nano with a very good chipset (and that's what intel isn't doing right now) because the cpu is again nothing special (a (U)LV 45nm notebook c2d will probably be way faster while consuming the same amount of power).

[Marvin_The_Martian]

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15204/9
That's incredible, a pentium m 760 is both faster and more power efficient than the nano
I really hope that Via will pair the Nano with a very good chipset (and that's what intel isn't doing right now) because the cpu is again nothing special (a (U)LV 45nm notebook c2d will probably be way faster while consuming the same amount of power).

Where does it say that

The Nano L2100 and Atom 230 take very different paths to completing the task with almost the same amount of energy consumed. The Atom takes quite a bit longer finishing, but keeps its power draw vastly lower as it works. The Nano consumes more power, yet finishes the work over a shorter period of time.

And..

Of course, the L2100 is aimed explicitly at desktops,

[Sapo84]

Where does it say that

http://techreport.com/r.x/nano-vs-at...-cbr-intel.gif
The pentium m is clearly faster
http://techreport.com/r.x/nano-vs-atom/power-total.gif
more efficient
http://techreport.com/r.x/nano-vs-at...ask-energy.gif
more efficient

slower than a 3 years old notebook 90nm cpu, and it uses more power...
It may be a passable solution if paired with a very good chipset, otherwise

[Marvin_The_Martian]

See post 84#

Could it be the reviewer knows it's to early to tell and he has no real outcome so all options are being adressed?

[alucasa]

This may be an off topic question.

If "the L2100 is aimed explicitly at desktops" is true, why are we comparing Atom with Nano ? Why are we not comparing Nano L2100 with desktop CPU such as Phenom and Conroe ? (or even single core celeron).

[Marvin_The_Martian]

No question is why isn't he comparing one of the lower models nano's with only atom but that's just my opinion.

[JumpingJack]

This may be an off topic question.

If "the L2100 is aimed explicitly at desktops" is true, why are we comparing Atom with Nano ? Why are we not comparing Nano L2100 with desktop CPU such as Phenom and Conroe ? (or even single core celeron).

It't not off topic -- Intel has touted this CPU as targeted specifically for low cost and low power (albiet low performance). These two attributes have historically been tagged to Via's C7 line.

So the concensus is to compare it to Nano, assuming like for like. One can argue the case either way ... Atom to Nano is ok... the non-consumer/retail/DIY Atom just happened to show up in the mini-ITX form factor in a boxed retail board. Hence the desktop to desktop comparision.

Frankly, it is in this space that Via will do very well with Nano. However, as you push down into the smaller form factors it becomes more advantaged to Atom.

[Shintai]

I think alot here mixes performance together with cost and TDP that is what products like Atom is targetted at.

Also the VIA Nano cost alot more. A VIA Nano with board cost around 250-350$ The Atom here around 80-100$. Not even to talk about what a LV/ULV "regular" mobile CPU would cost plus board.

[JumpingJack]

I think alot here mixes performance together with cost and TDP that is what products like Atom is targetted at.

Also the VIA Nano cost alot more. A VIA Nano with board cost around 250-350$ The Atom here around 80-100$. Not even to talk about what a LV/ULV "regular" mobile CPU would cost plus board.

PCper thinks it will come in around 100 bucks (nano+board combo). I picked up my Atom board from newegg at 65 or 69 bucks or so. I didn't think much of it myself, pretty simple board... 2 SATA and 1 IDE which I used to build a simple NAS to back up files. Given the application that I was thinking about using, and the costs ... the Atom board is much better suited.

I was not surprised at the performance delta to nano, but I was a bit surprised by the power reported by most of the sites.

[Shintai]

PCper thinks it will come in around 100 bucks (nano+board combo). I picked up my Atom board from newegg at 65 or 69 bucks or so. I didn't think much of it myself, pretty simple board... 2 SATA and 1 IDE which I used to build a simple NAS to back up files. Given the application that I was thinking about using, and the costs ... the Atom board is much better suited.

I was not surprised at the performance delta to nano, but I was a bit surprised by the power reported by most of the sites.

Previous/current VIA boards/combo of the same style costs 2-3 times more. So I wouldnt bet on it.

http://www.edbpriser.dk/Products/Lis...hArea=products

[alucasa]

PCper thinks it will come in around 100 bucks (nano+board combo). I picked up my Atom board from newegg at 65 or 69 bucks or so. I didn't think much of it myself, pretty simple board... 2 SATA and 1 IDE which I used to build a simple NAS to back up files. Given the application that I was thinking about using, and the costs ... the Atom board is much better suited.

I was not surprised at the performance delta to nano, but I was a bit surprised by the power reported by most of the sites.

There is no way it is going to cost only 100.

The current C7 line of mini itx boards (CPU + mini-itx) costs at least 120 USD with low-end ones. Majority will cost 150USD to even 250 USD.

Have a look.
http://www.logicsupply.com/categories/mainboards/via_c7

If Nano's performance is much better than C7, which is likely so, it is going to cost more than these.

Edit : Any word on dual-core Atom?

[Donnie27]

There is no way it is going to cost only 100.

The current C7 line of mini itx boards (CPU + mini-itx) costs at least 120 USD with low-end ones. Majority will cost 150USD to even 250 USD.

Have a look.
http://www.logicsupply.com/categories/mainboards/via_c7

If Nano's performance is much better than C7, which is likely so, it is going to cost more than these.

Edit : Any word on dual-core Atom?

Dewd, JJ knows what he's talking about and most never argue but asks questions. If he says they're around $100 research what he says, then try to make your point.

C7
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813153062

JetWay J7F4K1G5D-PB VIA NanoBGA C7 Processor VIA CN700 Mini ITX Motherboard/CPU Combo - Retail
Embedded efficient processor, highly low power consumption
$99.99 3 Business Day Shipping $8.25
(Not available in HI, AK and PR)
In Stock

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...nd&Order=PRICE

C3 for $24 after rebate. That's the good news.

The bad news is they are all too slow for most uses. Then if you use a large PCI-E video card, you have to use a large power supply. Then you slap yourself when you realize you're limited to 1GB of RAM on a slow FSB

[alucasa]

Alright, I stand corrected. The lowest end C7 is 100 USD. (Not 120)
However, that is the lowest end of the chain. Unless VIA decides to be extremely aggressive in price, I don't see their new CPU + Mini ITX ( With decent features) going for 100USD.

C3, I've tried few of that before. It is only good for web applications and custom firewalls. For anything else, it is too ineffective in raw speed. Though it runs Ubuntu just fine.

[Marvin_The_Martian]

I always thought it to be the other way around and alucasa the one who knew what he was talking about

Anyway, that first newegg link isn't that board paired with a c7 aka not nano cpu? And c3 isn't quite a nano either? Or am totally on the wrong track

[Donnie27]

Alright, I stand corrected. The lowest end C7 is 100 USD. (Not 120)
However, that is the lowest end of the chain. Unless VIA decides to be extremely aggressive in price, I don't see their new CPU + Mini ITX ( With decent features) going for 100USD.

C3, I've tried few of that before. It is only good for web applications and custom firewalls. For anything else, it is too ineffective in raw speed. Though it runs Ubuntu just fine.

Hey, no biggie! I don't remember the site but VIA said they'd price the new products the same or similar. I saw one running Ubuntu and it wasn't that bad.

[Donnie27]

I always thought it to be the other way around and alucasa the one who knew what he was talking about

Anyway, that first newegg link isn't that board paired with a c7 aka not nano cpu? And c3 isn't quite a nano either? Or am totally on the wrong track

Shrug See^