- This topic has 10 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi everyone,
i just read an test a bout NC20 and 1001H, look at the result :
Windows XP, 800×600, 32 bits, 3D Marks 2001.1001H : 2981
NC 20 : 2579I don’t think Via NANO is bad, but Atom is better, for sure. 😉
Source : NewGadgets.de
PS : this test is not really relevant…
The marks are not that different to be of significance. Do they tell in what modes (like Battery save or Performance) they tested the machines. The same machine in different modes performs differently.
[quote1235648810=20Syl]
PS : this test is not really relevant…
[/quote1235648810]That’s what sprung to my mind. People are more likely to buy an NC20 on the basis of size than performance I would imagine?!
Thanks for the tests!
However, I personally think 3DMark scores reflects graphics performance more than the CPU performance. I remember Spit had some Crystal Mark tests for NC20, and the result is slightly better than the Atom with the same clock speed.
Summertan : Their is no information about battery life. Both machine are in “performance mode”.
jez : This is a “Atom N270 Vs Via NANO” in 3D performances test. Nothing more. But it’s important to know that Atom is better than NANO. And think about the next generation from intel, ION… it will rocks ! You’r right, people should not buy a laptop on the basis of this point, that’s what i say it’s not relevant.
Hanzo : This is a CPU test in 3D performances, it’s right. And Nano shoul be better… that a bad point for VIA.
Sorry, i forgot the source :
NewGadgets.deThe via chipset may be a poorer preformer graphically, however it should have the lead (albiet a narrow one) when it comes to most cpu tests, with the one exception of multithreading thanks to hyperthreading on the atom (but hopefully the nanos’ out-of-order, superscaler design should help cut down on advantage).
However, the nano does have a number of advantages over the atom, at least the n270 model anyways;
Larger L1 caches (64 kb data and 64 kb instruction, vs 24 and 32 kb for the atom), twice the L2 cache (1024 vs 512 kb), and faster fsb (800 vs 553 MHz).Also, the nano is a 64-bit chip, supports virtualization acceleration, and has a hardware random number generator, aes encryption and sha hashing engine (although most of these may be of little use to most netbook users, each one of them is useful to me under linux).
Off topic, I’m really hoping they can produce a dual core nano chip with a low enough TDP for passive cooling, maybe when they switch to a 45nm process.
Together with a fanless ati 4350, and you have a great and quiet desktop system.I wants!
As i said, take this test as a 3D performances test.
More precisely, this test shows that the graphical chipset of the Via NANO platform (VIA Chrome 9 HC3) is a little bit weaker than the Intel GMA 950.Let’s wait more specific CPU facts to talk about CPUs.
Seems that the nano is not better than N270 (the first generation Atom…)http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=354077&page=3
From the Crystal Mark test, Nano looks very similar to the Atom N270, some tests like GDI, D2D, and OGL are much better.
And the other highlight of Nano is her Out-of-Order architecture.
[quote1235668581=20Syl]
As i said, take this test as a 3D performances test.
More precisely, this test shows that the graphical chipset of the Via NANO platform (VIA Chrome 9 HC3) is a little bit weaker than the Intel GMA 950.Let’s wait more specific CPU facts to talk about CPUs.
Seems that the nano is not better than N270 (the first generation Atom…)
[/quote1235668581]Fair enough, but the cpu in question then has nothing to do with this.The Chrome 9 HC3 is a part of the VX800 chipset, not the nano cpu itself, just as the igp on the asus is a part of intels’ 945GSE chipset, and not the atom cpu.
So stating that “the nano is not better than N270” is just plain wrong, as the benchmarks you’re actually basing this on have nothing to do with either the nano or the n270…
If you want to saay “the chrom 9 igp on the vx800 is not better than the igp on the 945GSE”, then fine, but that’s quite a bit different than the statements you did make.
My fault, when i said “Seems that the nano is not better than N270 (the first generation Atom…)”
i was talking about the reference platform. (Atom+gma VS Nano+chrome9)Some tests from netnooknews.de by Artthurko
Sisoft Sandra 2009 SP2 (dextop version VIA VB8001-16 Mini-ITX mit VIA Nano L2200@1.6GHz max. TPD 17W)
Processor Arithmetic:
Dhrystone ALU:
VIA Nano L2200 1.6GHz : 4653 MIPS
Intel Atom 240 (HT, 1.86GHz) : 4326 MIPS
Intel Atom N270 (HT, 1.6GHz) : 3707 MIPS
Intel Atom 240 (ohne HT, 1.86GHz) : 3600 MIPS
Intel Atom N270 (ohne HT, 1.6GHz) : 3085 MIPSProcessor Arithmetic:
Whetstone iSSE3:
VIA Nano L2200 1.6GHz : 4021 MIPS
Intel Atom 240 (HT, 1.86GHz) : 3763 MIPS
Intel Atom N270 (HT, 1.6GHz) : 3225 MIPS
Intel Atom 240 (ohne HT, 1.86GHz) : 2403 MIPS
Intel Atom N270 (ohne HT, 1.6GHz) : 2059 MIPSProcessor Multi-Media:
Multi-Media Int x8 iSSSE3:
VIA Nano L2200 1.6GHz : 8761 kPixels/s
Intel Atom 240 (HT, 1.86GHz) : 9503 kPixels/s
Intel Atom N270 (HT, 1.6GHz) : 8144 kPixels/s
ntel Atom 240 (ohne HT, 1.86GHz) : 6093 kPixels/s
Intel Atom N270 (ohne HT, 1.6GHz) : 5222 kPixels/sProcessor Multi-Media:
Multi-Media Float x4 iSSE2:
VIA Nano L2200 1.6GHz : 8393 kPixels/s
Intel Atom 240 (HT, 1.86GHz) : 7393 kPixels/s
Intel Atom N270 (HT, 1.6GHz) : 6336 kPixels/s
ntel Atom 240 (ohne HT, 1.86GHz) : ???? kPixels/s
Intel Atom N270 (ohne HT, 1.6GHz) : ???? kPixels/shttp://www.netbooknews.de/2274/benchmark-race-samsung-nc20-vs-eee-pc-1000h/#comment-6808
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.