Testing Configuration and Benchmarking Setup
Testing the VIA Nano and the Intel Atom processors was an interesting experience; obviously the kinds of tests we are used to doing on new processors take a much different tone when being run on these slower, lower power components. For starters, I tried installing Windows Vista x64 and the installer crashed on the VIA Nano motherboard on load – so that was out. After that I successfully got Vista 32-bit to run on both platforms but after a few hours of testing and play time I decided a move to Windows XP would be the best way to put these products in a positive light. (It’s also likely what most end-users would install on any Nano or Atom-based systems they might build.)The next step was to figure out what tests we wanted to run on these processors and in fact it turns out I was most curious how it would perform with general purpose computing tasks and media handling. You’ll see Futuremark’s PCMark05 results as well as compressing performance with WinRAR as well as MP3 and WMV encoding results. For standard CPU performance tests we have the defacto SiSoft Sandra results, CineBench 10 and POV-Ray benchmark results.
And what would a test of the Nano and Atom be without some detailed power consumption analysis? We’ll look at idle and load power consumption numbers as well as the total power consumed by the platforms during CineBench and MP3 encoding tests to see how the higher power consumption of the VIA system (spoiler!) relates to performance.
Both of the testing configurations are using their integrated graphics (except for one page of performance numbers towards the end where noted) and a single 1GB stick of DDR2-667 MHz memory as this seems like the most likely configuration an OEM or end user would choose to implement.
- VIA Nano L2100 CPU @ 1.8 GHz
- VIA CN896 chipset with Chrome9 IGP
- Raptor X 150GB hard drive
- 1 x 1GB Corsair DDR2-667 Memory
- Silverstone 750w PSU
- Intel Atom 230 CPU @ 1.6 GHz
- Intel 945GSE chipset with GMA IGP
- Raptor X 150GB hard drive
- 1 x 1GB Corsair DDR2-667 Memory
- Silverstone 750w PSU
Another interesting tidbit from my testing was that I had to resort to going into the basement to get an older monitor out – none of the testing monitors had VGA connections on them!
CPU-Z Information
How does CPU-Z compare these two parts? Let’s see side by side…
![]() VIA Nano Platform |
![]() Intel Atom Platform |
The initial CPU-Z images give us a lot of valuable information about the two processors that we have already discussed separately but that is good to see side by side. While the Nano is built on a 65nm process the Atom is designed around their own 45nm technologies – part of the reason behind the dramatic size advantage Intel’s Atom has. Both claim to be running at similar voltages though the Nano has a faster overall bus speed.
The Atom processor does have one big advantage though: HyperThreading allows it to work on two threads at the same time.
The Atom processor does have one big advantage though: HyperThreading allows it to work on two threads at the same time.
![]() VIA Nano Platform |
![]() Intel Atom Platform |
In terms of cache sizes the Nano processor again wins out with larger L1 caches and a full 1MB of L2 cache compared to Intel 512KB of L2 cache.
Okay, let’s get the numbers finally!
Okay, let’s get the numbers finally!