Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

VIA Introduces the Nano Processor

Posted by timothy on from the more-better-faster dept.

Vigile writes "While the VIA Isaiah architecture had been previously discussed, the new x86 processor is officially being released as the VIA Nano. The Nano marks VIA's first 64-bit, superscalar, speculative out-of-order CPU design and is being built on Fujitsu's 65nm process technology. While direct performance comparisons are still missing, the products being released could bring Intel's Atom platform to its knees: clock speeds as high as 1.8 GHz or as low as 1.0 GHz with a maximum power draw of only 5 watts! VIA's recently announced mini-note OpenBook platform is a likely candidate for the Nano the processors but they will likely find their way into mainstream desktop and notebook computers as well." Reader MojoKid contributes a link to HotHardware's story on the chip now known as the Nano , as well as a January interview with VIA's Centaur design center president, Glenn Henry, who "went into fairly deep detail on what VIA had in store with Isaiah."

17 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Cue Apple's lawyers by barryp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How long before "Nano" gets renamed because of another electronic processing device.

    1. Re:Cue Apple's lawyers by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suspect that Isaiah was renamed Nano in response to Intel's Atom. Small 4 letter names for small cpus. (I guess). Although Isaiah was likely always intended as a non-marketing codeword, I believe someone at VIA even mentioned that before.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Cue Apple's lawyers by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know you're joking, but ARM chips in the GHz range are drawing about 250mW, and the chips in the iPod Nano run a lot slower than this so they've got a long way to go if they want to compete in this kind of space, or even the handheld space.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Cue Apple's lawyers by papna · · Score: 3, Informative

      Incidentally, VIA has a theme among their processors/products of having Biblical codenames for things. In addition to Isaiah, Nehemiah, Eden, Ezra, Esther, and Samuel come to mind.

    4. Re:Cue Apple's lawyers by Emperor+Zombie · · Score: 5, Funny

      The iPod Nano Nano? Sounds like something Mork would use.

      --
      I'm so excited I just made water in my pantaloons!
  2. Really... by cartman · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the article summary:

    [Nano] could bring Intel's Atom platform to its knees: clock speeds as high as 1.8 GHz or as low as 1.0 GHz with a maximum power draw of only 5 watts!


    Intel's chip has a power draw of less than 2.5 watts for the highest-clocked chip. I don't see how a power draw that's twice that amount would bring Intel's atom to its knees.

    Also, I don't understand this necessity for cheesy bad-action-flick terminology ("Intel's chip brought to it's knees!") when all that has happened is a bit player releasing a product with no performance figures.

    1. Re:Really... by pablomme · · Score: 5, Informative
      Hey, hold on. The press release has a little table which is worth reading. The above sentence should read:

      [Nano] could bring Intel's Atom platform to its knees: clock speeds as high as 1.8 GHz with a maximum power draw of 25W or as low as 1.0 GHz with a maximum power draw of only 5 watts!
      --
      The state you are in while your HEAD is detached... - wait, what?
    2. Re:Really... by DrSkwid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Like the old joke "the watch is tiny but look at the battery I have to carry in a suitcase" take a look at this photo.

      That's the CPU in the foreground, passively heated, oo groovy. But wait, what's that huge heatsink with the fan ?!
      Intel have offloaded all the power requirements into the northbridge. That way they can say "our CPU is 2.5w matey".

      Oh, and it was supposed to ship June '08 but that's been quitely cancelled so no MSI Wind for you for the near future.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    3. Re:Really... by bestinshow · · Score: 5, Informative

      1) Intel specify typical TDP. VIA's is max TDP.

      2) Intel's desktop Atom (Diamondville) is 4W, not 2.5W.

      3) Intel's chipsets are 4x4s in comparison to the moped-like Atom, thus power consumption is widely unbalanced. VIA have a single-chip solution, but I don't know the power consumption.

      4) CPUs spend most of their time in idle - Nano uses 100mW here for all but the highest-end Nano.

      5) Nano is more powerful per clock than Atom.

    4. Re:Really... by LarsG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Atom is geared towards cell phones, smartphones, and PDAs. You kid, right? Atom is not for cell phones. At idle the Atom draws 15-20 times more electricity than what you want on a phone.

      Not to mention that Atom is a CPU only, you have to add a north/southbridge to get something comparable to a current ARM cell-phone SOC. To give an example - the TI Omap2420 contains everything plus the kitchen sink -accelerated 2d/3d, 3G stuff, SD-card controller, USB interface, IRDA interface, memory controller, display controller (including TV-out)...

      Currently, the Atom doesn't make much sense except on devices where X86 compatibility is a plus. In other words, subnotebooks.
      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    5. Re:Really... by Wdomburg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trying to compare the two processors with the amount of information available on them right now is pretty silly in general. Clock speed comparisons are even more silly considering the vastly different architectures (single-issue, in-order vs three-issue, out-of-order) and cache sizes (24K L1-I, 32K L1-D, 512K 8-way L2 vs 64k L1-I, 64K L1-D, 1024K 16-way L2).

      Power comparisons are a bit premature at this point as well. Noone knows what typical consumption is at this point; just idle and max. A lot depends on how effective the power management is in each processor. Depending on the performance delta between the chips it's also possible that a higher maximum TDP won't always be the disadvantage it seems to be; if the Via chip has higher instruction throughput, it means it can return to idle state that much quicker.

      There's also the question of the whole platform, as well. The chipset from Intel manages an impressive TDP (about 2.3W) but is somewhat limited - only 400/533MHz FSB, low max resolution (1366x768 LVDS or 1280x1024 SDVO), one DDR2 400/533Mhz slot, only two 1x PCI-e ports, no SATA and only one PATA channel. So far as I know there are no hard numbers of graphics performance since they're integrating a licensed design (PowerVR SGX535) that has traditionally been used in embedded devices. However their own slideshows comparing the capabilities with their (over four year old!) 915G chipset show about half the memory bandwidth and less than a third the pixel rate. In other words, pretty piss poor. They do, however, include hardware acceleration for most common codecs, which should minimize the impact in their target market.

      The new chipset Via is offering - the VX800 - consumes far more power at peak (though as with the processor this may or may not reflect typical depending on how the power management is implemented) but is a bit more featureful - 800MHz bus, up to 1920x1200, two DDR2 667MHz slots, a 4x PCI-e slot in addition to the two 1x slots, two SATA 2.0 ports and video capture support. They also offer a lower power version - the VX800u - which drops the peak TDP to 3.5W but drops the bus to 400MHz and nixes the 4x PCI-e slot and SATA ports.

      My take is that the Intel offering is probably better suited to certain embedded applications as well as the MID market. The main market these two will likely compete in is the burgeoning UMPC market. Without real performance and power numbers it's hard to say who has the edge. More likely than not which chip is best will depend entirely on what trade-offs the manufacturer is willing to make.

  3. I should trademark some names... by Dzimas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I should rush off to trademark Muon, Quark, Lepton, Meson and Positron. But seriously, the sudden movement at the bottom of the processor market highlights a seismic shift toward ultra portables. The Asus eee was the vanguard, and I suspect we'll see literally dozens of decent machines in this market segment by the end of the year. It remains to be seen whether anyone will actually make money in this segment, though. Asus set the bar low with a $299 machine and consumers are expecting to be bowled over by increasingly capable machines at that price point.

  4. Ummm, that's not all that impressive by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    Intel has 65nm Core Solo processors (the U1300-1500) that are spec'd at 5.5 watts TPD, and they tend to be conservative on that. Now I suppose it could end up that the Via chip does more per clock than the Core Solo, but I'd want to see some real world benchmarks before buying in to that. Via has traditionally not been that powerful per clock, and Intel's Core chips are some of the most powerful per clock of anything we've yet seen.

    Also reading the article, 5 watts isn't the max, 5 watts is the TDP at 1GHz. Going up to 1.8GHz you go to 25 watts. This is very similar to the Core Solo (5.5 watts for 1-1.33Ghz, 27 watts for 1.66-1.83GHz). So it seems to me this isn't really a competitor to the Atom, more to the Core Solo. However the Core Solo is a pretty impressive chip,, so to be a real competitor this will need to be as well.

    Also Intel has a 45nm factory up and running full steam, with parts available retail. Currently it's Core 2 desktop components it's making, but there's no reason that it can't do these Core Solo notebook chips as well. Of course, going to the smaller process would mean even less power usage.

    So we'll have to see how this chip does in real world benchmarks once it's available to third parties. However, it isn't some new part that comes in below what Intel is offering, rather it is in the same segment as their Core Solo. That means it faces some reasonably stiff competition on the performance front.

  5. Call me a cynic by Bullfish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but considering that all of my experiences with Via's products have been problematic at best, I will give this product the same shunning I have given their motherboard products. At least until I see a couple of years of good real world reports... Frankly I am surprised that the company lives

  6. Re:Intel won't be losing any sleep by bestinshow · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Diamondville Atoms that this will compete with use 4W though. In addition the Intel chipsets that they have been paired with so far use up to 22W! If VIA have a 10W chipset (VX800) to use with this, they will have the best overall *platform* in terms of power consumption, and performance will be good as well apparently. The TDPs appear to ramp after 1.3GHz, it must be a side effect of the Fujitsu 65nm process.

  7. Re:Obligatory. by iowannaski · · Score: 3, Funny

    1997 called. It wants its obligations back.

    --
    i forget
  8. Performance Numbers... by PHanT0 · · Score: 3, Informative


    "While direct performance comparisons are still missing"... you can get the indirect ones for now.

    http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6932&Itemid=1