Via Nano
The Via Nano CPU

VIA Nano officially launched

Please install the flash player

Bennett Ring10 June 2008, 11:00 PM

Good things come in small packages: a third CPU manufacturer has released a super-tiny, super-efficient CPU for Eee-style PCs.


With Intel and AMD’s back and forth fight for silicon domination, it’s easy to forget that there’s a third CPU manufacturer out there. VIA used the buzz around Computex as an opportunity to remind the world that it offers a viable alternative to the big two, with a series of major announcements that are sure to prove interesting to HTPC builders.

Earlier in the week it formally introduced its new super-efficient CPU, the VIA Nano. Based on VIA’s C7 architecture, this 64-bit chip will arrive in a 21mm x 21mm nanoBGA2 package, and has a planet-saving 100mW idle power consumption.  Utilising a 65 nanometre manufacturing process, the chip will be released in a range of frequencies from 1GHz up to 1.8GHz, all of which have an 800MHz frontside bus. Compared to heavyweight processors from AMD and Intel, the 1MB of L2 cache is relatively small, but VIA is quick to point out that the Nano is not designed for crunching through massive Photoshop files or churning through Premiere video files. Instead, judging by VIA’s marketing pitch, the Nano is targeting the home theatre market, offering plenty of power for HD video decoding.

The Nano has a new place to call home, with the simultaneous release of VIA’s VX800 Unified Digital Media IGP chipset. Combing the North and Southbridge into one 33mm x 33mm chip, the VX800 follows in the Nano’s forest-friendly footsteps, offering a total processor platform energy consumption of just 7.5W.

Within the chipset resides VIA’s Chrome9 HC3 integrated graphics core, which is capable of accelerating most of today’s commonly used video codecs, such as MPEG-2 and DivX. Whether it’s got the grunt to handle Blu-ray is another matter though, with no mention of this capability on the initial VIA press release.

Just days after these two announcements, VIA paired up with NVIDIA to release its Mini-ITX 2.0 specifications. Unlike Intel’s competing Atom specs, Mini-ITX does not limit motherboard manufacturers to a single DIMM slot and also allows them to include PCI Express slots, a big no-no for Atom boards. With this trinity of low-power, small form factor announcements, it appears that VIA’s sights are firmly set on the living room rather than the study.
Read APC on your iPad now!

Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Raindog (Cornerstone member):

I love these mini, micro, nano releases but when it comes back to reality It always happens that I can buy a full size server box for hundred less than the underpowered equivalent.

Sexy they may be but its hard to apply in too many situations until the small form factor and fanless wizardry is at least somewhere near price parity.

11 June 2008, 12:31 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

stylewyse (New user):

hmm, let me get this straight, you find a solution that uses around 50 watts, fully stressed, (40 watt idling, 60 stressed, averaging 50 watts) that costs $ 100,- more, less desirable then a full size server box which usually runs 300-400 watts?

let me do some quick calculations here:
studies show that an average computer user has it's PC on around 10 hours a day...

50 watt * 10 hours * 365 = 182500, or 182,5 kW/h
300 watt * 10 hours * 365 = 1095000 or 1.095 kW/h

1 kW/h costs around $ 0.50 which makes:

182,5 * 0,50 = $ 91,25
1.095 * 0,50 = $ 547,50

so your $ 100,- cheaper server box will cost you approximatly $ 356,25 MORE after the FIRST year alone!

09 December 2008, 2:33 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Cornerstone member):

Quoting stylewyse:
let me do some quick calculations here:

Very quick it appears. (Mind those decimals)


Quoting stylewyse:
50 watt * 10 hours * 365 = 182500, or 182,5 kW/h

Indeed it does, 182.5 kW/h.


Quoting stylewyse:
300 watt * 10 hours * 365 = 1095000 or 1.095 kW/h

No it doesn't! It actually equals 1095 kWh. That is before taking into account that the actual usage figure for the more capable server will still be somewhere above the 300w minimum figure.


Quoting stylewyse:
1 kW/h costs around $ 0.50 which makes

Looking at the latest energy Australia general tariff schedules you'd pay approximately 20.845c per kW/h residential or 20.35c per kW/h commercial. So either your 50c was determined taken from "the greens" propaganda or you are basing your sums on power from a mid sized diesel generator.


So the Micro Itx server on the same rubbery figures will cost 182.5 * 20.35 = $37.14 per annum

A more competent (300w) server on the same figures will cost 1095 * 20.35 = $222.83 per annum

So somewhat closer to the real world the Micro ITX server has saved $185.69 per annum in electricity consumption.

Given the price discrepancy between say a Dell T105 at $495.00 and a Via box at realistically around $600.00. You've achieved under a 12 months payback, and with that you have the accountants taking notice.

The reality is however that the consumptions will be relative to the loading of the machines, and VIA nanos may not be your wisest choice for a 25 seat server, they would never cope.

In a domestic or SOHO office situation however the Via Nanos could be more than competently pressed into service as a firewall and gateway.

Despite your obvious mistake, you had assumed the best case figures for the Dual core server and the worst case for the Micro ITX and you used an unrealistic energy cost.

I summary these little boxes can be really cost effective solutions for the right applications but don't apply then to tasks they cannot handle.

09 December 2008, 9:56 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags