Two posts in a row that pick out errors in other peoples reports. I’m starting to sound like a CrankyGeek! I will be more positive. I will be more positive. I will….
Fudzilla briefly tested the 1.6Hz Diamondville version of the Atom processor and don’t appear to be too impressed.
“… the CPU doesn’t really do well in multi-media applications. It doesn’t even render that well, as Cinebench was incredibly slow, slower than we’ve seen in years.”
But then they say this:
the CPU is great for surfing, typing, instant messaging and listening to music. It even plays videos just fine
Which is exactly what it’s meant to do! The features are in the size, power-efficiency and mainly, cost, not in the performance figures.
With this new CPU running 60% faster than the previous generation it gives marketing teams a nice little advantage but when real-life performance doesn’t get anywhere near what’s expected of a 1.6Ghz CPU, managing expectation becomes a bit of a problem. I don’t think it’s Fudzilla’s fault that they’ve focused on performance first.
Related: Don’t expect miracles from Netbooks.
Source: Fudzilla review.
May 30th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Raw performance is an easy thing to talk. Note that when you posted that VIA had officially announced the Nano, the first thing people started talking about was raw performance numbers compared to Atom. As you point out, it’s much more interesting, in both cases, to see whether they are powerful enough to do the thing people actually do with a mobile device.
If they are both good enough, I don’t think it much matters which one beats the other one in terms of raw performance. The battle will be won on other grounds.
[Reply (threaded)]
May 31st, 2008 at 8:43 am
I still would like to see performance of Dual Diamondville CPU, this one should be at the same level as Celeron or maybe even a bit above.
[Reply (threaded)]