Featured Articles

Analysts expect ARM to do well next year

Analysts expect ARM to do well next year

British chip designer ARM could cash in on the mobile industry's rush to transition to 64-bit operating systems and hardware.

More...
Huawei and Xiaomi outpace Lenovo, LG in smartphone market

Huawei and Xiaomi outpace Lenovo, LG in smartphone market

Samsung has lost smartphone market share, ending the quarter on a low note and Xiaomi appears to be the big winner.

More...
Intel Broadwell 15W coming to CES

Intel Broadwell 15W coming to CES

It looks like Intel will be showing off its 14nm processors, codenames Broadwell, in a couple of weeks at CES 2015.

More...
Gainward GTX 980 Phantom reviewed

Gainward GTX 980 Phantom reviewed

Today we’ll be taking a closer look at the recently introduced Gainward GTX 980 4GB with the company’s trademark Phantom cooler.

More...
Zotac ZBOX Sphere OI520 barebones vs Sphere Plus review

Zotac ZBOX Sphere OI520 barebones vs Sphere Plus review

Zotac has been in the nettop and mini-PC space for more than four years now and it has managed to carve…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Thursday, 18 September 2008 13:06

VIA Nano 1.8GHz fails to impress - 2 Benchmarks

Written by Eliot Kucharik

ImageImage

Review Updated: Poor performance due to motherboard issue

 

VIA hyped Nano quite well, telling the world it will be faster than Intel's Atom. They told us how much they also improved the FPU, but they failed to impress, completely. It is even slower than Atom which, as we all know, is unbelievably slow itself, but VIA proves it can do worse than that. The Celeron 220 is still the champion in this class.

 

VIA Nano 1.80GHz

Image

 

Intel Atom N230 1.60GHz without hyperthreading

Image

 

Intel Atom N230 1.60GHz with hyperthreading, which helps

Image

 

Intel Celeron 220 1.20GHz

Image

It gets worse with super-pi. Nano makes a come-back to our past, and sets you back 10 years ago, when we were happy to see such results. Both Atom and Nano are no match for the quite old Celeron 220.

 

VIA Nano 1.80GHz

Image

 

Intel Atom N230 1.60GHz

Image

 

Intel Celeron 220 1.20GHz

Image

 

We now know the FPUs are quite lame, but to check out ALU performance we also ran the benchmark provided by the SiSoft Sandra Lite Suite. As you can see here, the Nano is behind the Atom, whereas the Atom benefits from hyperthreading quite well, especially when it comes to ALU performance.

 

Image

 

(Page 2 of 3)
Last modified on Monday, 22 September 2008 14:09
blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments