Test Setup

"WinRAR is a thread-optimized file compression tool (versions 3.6 and up), which Intel’s Atom can take advantage of. Still, VIA’s Nano still is more powerful."

"Atom is a low-power product, but it is not really fast."

Does low power imply high performance? Not in my book!

hmmmz, interesting..so it's the VIA for netbooks, then?!

shame lazy intel couldn't have coupled the atom with a better chipset.




p.s. stuff and nonsense: http://www.eupeople.net/forum

^

It's a pity Intel will do better simply because it's Intel and the people know the name.

Via has been at the forefront of low-power devices for quite some time, but 1MB L2 cache..that's got to have a significant impact on energy consumption. Similary, if AMD could release a 45nm Sempron with reduced HT speed and L2 cache (say, 128 or 256k), I think they'd make a good product even better. AMD's overall solution appeals to me most, however there are embedded devices available that draw even less energy for specific applications, devices that are more reliable.

It is indeed a pity. The viewpoints are projected onto desktop processors as well..if it's not as fast as this core 2 duo or core 2 quad it must be useless. The rest of us build cheap, powerful computers and put them to good use regardless of the name on the top of the heat spreader..

Also, the real-world differences..aside from trying to watch movies, I doubt very much you'd actually 'feel' much difference between any of these systems for say, basic productivity or web-browsing. I've clocked Athlon64's down from 2.5 to 1.0GHz and sure, there's a difference, but in the cases above the difference isn't really that huge. Let's also keep in mind the fact the AMD rig has an onboard memory controller running at clock speed..both the Intel and Via hardware would draw more power if they had the same hardware.

Also, the real-world differences..aside from trying to watch movies, I doubt very much you'd actually 'feel' much difference between any of these systems for say, basic productivity or web-browsing. I've clocked Athlon64's down from 2.5 to 1.0GHz and sure, there's a difference, but in the cases above the differences aren't really that huge.

Let's also keep in mind the fact the AMD rig has an onboard memory controller running at clock speed..both the Intel and Via CPU's would draw more power if they had the same hardware.

I'm just wondering why (or probably) they couldn't find a 780G Mini-ITX for AMD? Jetway and J&W both make mini-ITX motherboards that support AM2+ (up to 95W Phenoms). Both have 128MB sideport memory, with the only real difference is PCI vs. PCIe.
J&W: MINIX™ 780G-SP128MB
JetWay: NC81-LF

its all very well to slate intel, but fact is, some software runs on intel and wont run on via ( dont know about amd ) - in particular the windowsCE development environment. no good having a low power cpu if you cant run your software on it.

You forgot the most important difference - the Atom is available! Good luck in trying to find the Nano or low power Athlon anywhere. Even if you do find one of those processors, I doubt it will be at or less than the £60 at Atom motherboard can be had for.

I'm disappointed that more cpu/mb models from the three competitors were not tried. I'd be especially interested in the amd geode, an underclocked and undervolted athlon x2 4850e and some of the core2duos (also underclocked and undervolted)

Any VIA mini-ITX board costs four times a Atom board in same form factor. How many netbooks will you find with Nano and how many with Atom? Money talks! Low power users will prefer battery lifetime before power.