Video comparing Via Nano vs. Intel Atom playing HD video
We have seen benchmarks that show Via Nano’s processor providing good performance results compared to the uber-popular Intel Atom. We’ve pointed out that often these benchmarks use a SKU of the Via Nano that is high-end and not really destined for mobile devices. Via took notice and sent us a link to a video they shot of the 1.3 GHz Nano going head to head against the 1.6 GHz Intel Atom playing HD video (1080p). Have a look and see how they stack up. Of course, the video was done by Via so you can probably predict how they stack up. 
I can’t see the video (YouTube is blocked at work), but it may be more of a test of the chipset than the CPU. The VIA chipset has on-board decoding for a number of video codecs – offloading the heavy lifting from the CPU.
Even with that said, it’s the overall performance that counts as you can’t build a device with only a CPU. I’d like to see a review of a shipping Nano based system, such as an updated HP Mininote.
What a terrible video. At one point I can’t hear what the man’s saying above the background noise. He says nothing about battery life, or if he does it’s buried under the noise. All we get is a comparison of two machines running a video (something I never do on an ultraportable).
what he fails to mention is that the Nano uses 8w versus the Atom’s 2.4w, they are not even in the same class. he should be comparing the battery sucking Nano to a Core Solo.
also, who plays 1080p video on a mininotebook?! most of them dont even have enough resolution to do 720p!
it sounds like to me he wanted Atom to fail.
what guys who make videos like dont understand is, in their PR slant to favor their own product it makes them look even less credible. with consumers becoming more knowledgeable these days they can see through ridiculous videos like this with no problem.
For people who keep saying that Atom uses less power…yes Atom has a lower TDP, but it performs tasks slower (or in the case of 1080p video … not at all), meaning it uses its low TDP for longer… which is not efficient, or less battery draining.
It is not only power draw needed to execute a task that is important but the time period of drawing that power while executing the task as well that will actually affect your battery life. So that you can know the total amount of energy drawn during the completion of the task.
Ryan Shrout the editor of PC Perspective actually did some sample tests of measuring power usage over time comparing the VIA Nano and Intel Atom:
“Using the same method to gauge the results of our CineBench 10 test, we find that the VIA Nano used 63,434 watt-seconds (Joules) of energy to render the scene while the Intel Atom used 65,893 watt-seconds (Joules) of energy – an advantage of 3.8% to the VIA CPU.
These kinds of power comparisons are incredibly insightful and you can clearly see how both teams of CPU designers have made trade offs for the either power consumption or speed. The VIA Nano L2100 is able to perform these tasks faster (by as much as 30% in some cases) while still using less total energy than Intel’s Atom. ”
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=597&type=expert&pid=8
So in most “real world” usage scenarios… Nano also beats Atom with less power consumption.
Power consumption/TDP/ is a tricky area that most people don’t understand well.
“Power consumption/TDP/ is a tricky area that most people don’t understand well.”
neither do you Tim nor Ryan. running selective demanding niche tests is a VERY poor way to judge. these tests are typical of a predetermined POV & creating a bogus test in order to prove it, extremely deceiving.
besides if your all’s logic made sense they would just cram faster CPU’s in everything to get the job done faster & use “less” power *chuckles*
i think the very fact Via has had to reduce themselves making propaganda-ish videos like this says everything. because of all the hopes & promises they made of the Nano & then when the final product was announced it was underwhelming to their community. it’s actually a classic Intel move. if you understood CPU architecture better you would understand why on many many levels the Nano has turned out to be quite a failure.
the only real good i can say about it is that it would certainly make a good drop in replacement for the HP 2133. passed that, this CPU is going nowhere fast (and sucking alot of gas doing it).
fine… run any of the numerous generators out there & peg them both at 100% CPU. can the Nano get the job done 3x’s faster? it should considering it uses 3x’s the juice at load. but nope it cant, not even 30% faster! while technically the Nano is still faster, the Atom absolutely destroys it in watt-ratio performance and thats actually being nice. i think it even kicks the body around while its dead.
the Nano is so horribly designed i’m not even sure what market its trying to compete with. it looks more inline with a Core Solo, but a CS would destroy it in both performance & efficiency. going by the initial plans for the Nano it seems like something went wrong along the way & Via has had to completely remarket it in order to make it not seem like a disaster. wasnt Via the 1 that just recently said its not for the subnote market, then why are they comparing it to the Atom? my guess is because they know the CS will crush it.
if anybody has any doubts about how bad it is going for Via, just go look at the various forums dedicated to the low power file server market (the only market Via has ever owned over Intel). they are all extremely disappointed with this new CPU, all they even talk about now is the Atom & upcoming DC Atom. these guys are use to running smallbox setups that use 5-7% CPU at load, the Nano would do more than that with just the CPU alone!
I’m skeptical. Sure, the Via Nano performs well, but what’s the battery drain and heat dissipation like when playing back 1080p HD content?
As you’ve mentioned before and s I’ve experienced myself, the Via C7M runs very hot compared to the Intel Atom and features worse battery life – of course the Nano is newer and hopefully better.
But let’s see some real-world usability tests!