Reg Hardware

Comments on: VIA Nano ultra-low power processor

Given: n=3a 

Posted Thursday 14th August 2008 13:25 GMT

Thumb Up

Prove: n=3a

"As VIA SN hardware sells for £150 ... that suggests Nano might be three times the price of Atom. Ouch.

If so, it'll be roughly three times the price of a comparable Atom."

80 watts? 

Posted Thursday 14th August 2008 15:50 GMT

Dead Vulture

What a pile of rubbish. Where does this (p)review show that Nano is twice as fast as Atom? What are the specs of the test system - memory, hard drive(s), power supply? What did you do to it to push it to 80W? I can do 80W with a 45W dual-core AMD (under $100 including mATX mobo, miniITX might be more expensive), 1GB DDR2 and a "green" Caviar, so either the Nano, or the review is full of crap.

Hmm 

Posted Friday 15th August 2008 08:08 GMT

Joke

So it's unlikely to play Crysis then?

PCMark05 favours GenuineIntel CPUID 

Posted Friday 15th August 2008 09:08 GMT

Black Helicopters

Does no-one at El Reg read Slashdot or Ars Technica? Ars demonstrated that just changing the CPUID of the Nano to "GenuineIntel" improves the memory subsystem benchmark by 47.4%, pushing it significantly above the Atom for memory. I'm not making this up, check the Ars Technica "Low-end grudge match: Nano vs. Atom" by Joel Hruska (29 July 2008). Worth a mention, if only for the PCMark/Intel conspiracy...