| ||Thread Tools|
|31st July 2008, 08:56||#1|
Join Date: May 2002
Intel Dothan (Pentium M 760) beats VIA Nano and Intel Atom
The Nano L2100 and Atom 230 take very different paths to completing the task with almost the same amount of energy consumed. The Atom takes quite a bit longer finishing, but keeps its power draw vastly lower as it works. The Nano consumes more power, yet finishes the work over a shorter period of time.
Looking at these results, one can't help but think that the Atom could be an astoundingly power-efficient processor when coupled with a chipset and platform with a lower power use floor. Intel, of course, has such things in the works for other markets. In the same vein, we're definitely at the ugly end of the clock frequency/voltage curve with the Nano L2100. The Nano U2400, which runs at 1.3GHz and has an 8W TDP, ought to offer much better performance per joule.
As it stands, though, the Pentium M 760, an older chip manufactured on a 90nm fab process, used markedly less energy to encode an MP3 than either of the low-cost platforms we're testing today—a testament to the remarkable energy-efficient performance of the Dothan Pentium M design.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Intel BOXD945GCLF2D Atom 330 Motherboard||jmke||WebNews||0||22nd July 2009 10:47|
|Minilaptop CPU showdown: Atom vs. Neo vs. Nano||jmke||WebNews||0||14th April 2009 18:27|
|VIA Nano 1.8Ghz wipes floor with Intel Atom 1.6Ghz in Internet Benchmarks||jmke||WebNews||0||11th February 2009 19:51|
|Intel Atom vs. VIA Nano Platform Comparo||jmke||WebNews||0||12th August 2008 10:27|
|Via Nano Beats Intel Atom in HD Video PlayBack? Not Quite!||jmke||WebNews||0||4th August 2008 21:17|
|Intel Atom vs VIA Nano - Early Benchmarks||jmke||WebNews||2||29th July 2008 22:07|
|Intel prepares to roll out 65 nano Pentium 4s||Sidney||WebNews||0||9th September 2005 16:20|
|CMOS virtually immortal, Intel claims||Sidney||WebNews||1||28th February 2005 22:37|
|AMD claims it's catching Intel on 65 nano tech||jmke||WebNews||0||26th February 2005 16:49|