Comments on: Isaiah launches as ‘Nano.’ U version Good for UMPCs. Devices expected Q3

By: Piter

Piter — Fri, 30 May 2008 22:03:04 +0000

I share Scoobie’s expectation on some info from computex and also waiting for pricing.

By: scoobie

scoobie — Thu, 29 May 2008 20:10:52 +0000

Please can we have another chip state of the nation after computex from chippy , because I’m completely lost in the Nano vs Atom battle

By the way, what a clever and cheeky name choice - Nano is

By: Hanzo

Hanzo — Thu, 29 May 2008 15:58:46 +0000

Thanks Will!

According the benchmarks, we could get

1G Nano : 4762 2976

1.86 Atom: 6566 5061

Ratio : 72% 59%

By: Synced

Synced — Thu, 29 May 2008 15:37:24 +0000

Not too impressed with VIA announcements. Intel is very good at announcing and shipping shortly after, VIA has not been.

Once I am able to start buying these in bulk for our business & partners at that point I will give VIA some credit.

Sorry about the negativity but Nano-ITX and Pico-ITX took nearly 2 years to ship after announcements, of which after they were released, competitors were first to market etc.

Hopefully VIA learns their opportunity is “now” and gets on their horse earlier than previous products.

Looking forward to it though when I am able to get my hands on them. Sounds very promising.

By: Will

Will — Thu, 29 May 2008 12:47:08 +0000

There was a comparison between the 1.6GHz Atom and 1.6GHz Isaiah a few weeks ago using CrystalMark:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/18/preliminary-benchmarks-have-vias-isaiah-besting-intels-atom/

The synthetic benchmark has been shown to scale reasonably linearly with CPU speed so you can extrapolate the scores for the 1.86GHz Atom and the 1.0GHz Nano.

By: Hanzo

Hanzo — Thu, 29 May 2008 12:12:48 +0000

Will, could you tell me the link of 1.86Ghz Atom benchmark? Thanks!

By: Will

Will — Thu, 29 May 2008 11:47:33 +0000

I wonder how much the Nano is going to cost?

Based on initial benchmarks, the 1.86GHz Atom is 40-50% faster than the 1GHz Nano while using half the power. It needs to be significantly cheaper than Menlow as it’s certainly nowhere near as efficient.