Shuttle XS29F: Is VIA's Nano Processor Powerful Enough?
Tags:
- Shuttle
-
Processors
- Dual Core
- Power
Last response: in Reviews comments
Crashman
September 2, 2009 6:01:13 AM
VIA’s latest Nano processors make big efficiency claims, but are these low-power processors powerful enough for daily use? We put Shuttle’s U1700-powered XS29F to the test against a dual-core Atom-based competitor and our own home-built Celeron box.
Shuttle XS29F: Is VIA's Nano Processor Powerful Enough? : Read more
Shuttle XS29F: Is VIA's Nano Processor Powerful Enough? : Read more
More about : shuttle xs29f nano processor powerful
Anonymous
September 2, 2009 6:20:27 AM
pakardbell486dx2
September 2, 2009 6:27:36 AM
This may be a dumb question, but why was Xp not used for this test? Clearly "just barely" wont work for people who spend their hard earn money on something like this. Maybe the celeron is ok for vista basic but the atom and nano platforms are just not good enough for Vista. If I can make an analogy comparing Vista and Atom/Nano it's like an old 73' Corolla trying to haul ten tons uphill.
Score
18
Related resources
- Is my power supply enough for a 6300 processor and a 7770 graphics card? - Forum
- Is the processor powerful enough to keep up with GT 640M? - Forum
- Power Supply unit (is it enough for my graphic+processor) - Forum
- Low-powered processor good enough for HD/Blu-ray video? - Forum
- Not enough power or Bad Processor? No Beeps, No Display - Forum
werr20
September 2, 2009 6:33:06 AM
ethaniel
September 2, 2009 6:42:32 AM
tacoslave
September 2, 2009 6:54:56 AM
Blueridge
September 2, 2009 7:11:26 AM
I agree that the major drawback of this review is the use of Microsoft Vista. I think that Windows XP Home edition for ULPC or a netbook spin of a linux distro (e.g. Ubuntu) would have been a much better choice for this review, especialy since is very well known that Vista is just not the right choice for netbooks (or nettops). Some time ago I read several reviews of the nano processor, based on Win XP and they performed more than OK, they were even suitable for a small HTPC at that time (the toughest challenge was DVD playback back then) and with a better chipset would have performed even netter. But this happens when a resource hungry OS like vista is used... just my 2 cents.
Score
13
HalfHuman
September 2, 2009 7:14:51 AM
i guess a windoze xp or 7 would be a lot better to use with this kind of hardware. in fact i cannot think at a more inapropriate os to run on a nentop than vista.
maybe the performance delta would be the same but the usability would be more than "acceptable".
regarding the "benchmarking" stuff... i do not think that anybody sane would buy a nettop to use it for hardcore photo editiing or transcoding.
if i'd buy a nettop i'd be interested in several factors:
- to be powerfull enough for office work and maybe hd playback
- to use as little power as possible (which nano does nicely) as this kind of device would be rarely powered down
- to be silent (which nano is)
i think that performance per watt is irrelevant here as a system like this is not meant to be "performant". i think that the one that uses less watts, has more features is queter wins here.
my take on this is that via has a very nice platform and nano wins even if it's not the fastest.
maybe the performance delta would be the same but the usability would be more than "acceptable".
regarding the "benchmarking" stuff... i do not think that anybody sane would buy a nettop to use it for hardcore photo editiing or transcoding.
if i'd buy a nettop i'd be interested in several factors:
- to be powerfull enough for office work and maybe hd playback
- to use as little power as possible (which nano does nicely) as this kind of device would be rarely powered down
- to be silent (which nano is)
i think that performance per watt is irrelevant here as a system like this is not meant to be "performant". i think that the one that uses less watts, has more features is queter wins here.
my take on this is that via has a very nice platform and nano wins even if it's not the fastest.
Score
4
Blueridge
September 2, 2009 7:21:44 AM
HalfHuman
September 2, 2009 7:22:46 AM
apache_lives
September 2, 2009 7:45:33 AM
Anonymous
September 2, 2009 8:07:05 AM
Don't understand y u even wrote this article.
No Point at all.
u guys problems are u doesn't even know what we want to read. You guys simply put up unprofessional article. Who would run vista in these types of platform? where is da video performance? Where is the noise test?
speechless... really speechless...
No Point at all.
u guys problems are u doesn't even know what we want to read. You guys simply put up unprofessional article. Who would run vista in these types of platform? where is da video performance? Where is the noise test?
speechless... really speechless...
Score
-10
juliom
September 2, 2009 8:15:26 AM
tenshin0313
September 2, 2009 8:56:08 AM
Why not using 1.6Ghz Nano XS29 system to do a fair test against Atom 330?
http://www.mostreviews.com/reviews/23357
http://www.mostreviews.com/reviews/23357
Score
3
tenshin0313
September 2, 2009 8:56:21 AM
Why not using 1.6Ghz Nano XS29 system to do a fair test against Atom 330?
http://www.mostreviews.com/reviews/23357
http://www.mostreviews.com/reviews/23357
Score
-1
Blueridge
September 2, 2009 9:30:02 AM
Yep, I totally agree! As long as there is a Shuttle machine equipped with a Nano processor that's running at a frequency close to the Atom's, that's the one that should have been used for this article. It's not fair to make the Intel based machine a clear winner in this article without pitting against a worthy opponent.
Though this may seem far fetched, if Tom's hardware wants to maintain their standards as professionals, there should be a sequel to this article with a proper suite of benchmarks, a proper OS and balanced HW configurations (at least a 1.6Ghz Via Nano).
After digging a little on the VIA's website, I think a better netbook would be build with the fastest Nano processor and the ULV version of the VX800 chipset. Just my two cents... again
Though this may seem far fetched, if Tom's hardware wants to maintain their standards as professionals, there should be a sequel to this article with a proper suite of benchmarks, a proper OS and balanced HW configurations (at least a 1.6Ghz Via Nano).
After digging a little on the VIA's website, I think a better netbook would be build with the fastest Nano processor and the ULV version of the VX800 chipset. Just my two cents... again
Score
5
Regected
September 2, 2009 9:33:13 AM
DjEaZy
September 2, 2009 9:47:33 AM
amnotanoobie
September 2, 2009 9:57:30 AM
Anonymous
September 2, 2009 11:01:40 AM
Crashman
September 2, 2009 11:21:30 AM
ethanielNo CPU usage tests on Blu-ray playback? I was expecting that...
You don't play blu-ray movies on office PC's. Well you might, but generally speaking office PC's don't even come with blu-ray drives.
These two models target the desktop specifically, not home theaters.
juliomWhy is a dual core CPU being compared to a single core one?...
That's the way Shuttle wanted it.
tenshin0313Why not using 1.6Ghz Nano XS29 system to do a fair test against Atom 330?http://www.mostreviews.com/reviews/23357
That's not the way Shuttle wanted it.
plinoYou should this properly: Intel Atom 270/280 vs VIA Nano U1700That would be a useful test for those interested in fanless nettops.The Atom 330 is a dual core which requires a fan...
Then why doesn't the CPU HAVE a fan?
Score
-3
HalfHuman
September 2, 2009 12:28:40 PM
jeffunit
September 2, 2009 2:04:42 PM
Why use an 850watt power supply, when it is only drawing a maximum of 50 watts? Sure it is 80+, but the efficiency graph that is referred to starts at 20% load, which is 170w dc, which is
about 188w ac. Since this system is using about 1/4 of that power, the load is roughly 5%. There are 80+ power supplies rated at 200w or so. I am certain the celeron would use significantly less power when paired with a reasonable power supply.
This was the same problem with tomshardware reviewing the intel atom, last year. They picked some monster power supply, which was inefficient at low power loads.
Looking around, I found http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=771
a 200w 80+ power supply for $55. I am sure there are others.
about 188w ac. Since this system is using about 1/4 of that power, the load is roughly 5%. There are 80+ power supplies rated at 200w or so. I am certain the celeron would use significantly less power when paired with a reasonable power supply.
This was the same problem with tomshardware reviewing the intel atom, last year. They picked some monster power supply, which was inefficient at low power loads.
Looking around, I found http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=771
a 200w 80+ power supply for $55. I am sure there are others.
Score
0
Anonymous
September 2, 2009 2:35:34 PM
How exactly would they have used a dual core nano when no such product exists? Furthermore, when you compare products you compare them on price, performance, power usage, or other factors. Whether one product has more cores is part of its design and part of the review criteria. You compare what each vendor offers based on reviewed criteria, not what's "fair". The nano is single core, and it uses more power. Deal with it.
Score
0
redgarl
September 2, 2009 4:02:34 PM
redgarl
September 2, 2009 4:05:16 PM
Score
0
megamanx00
September 2, 2009 4:08:02 PM
Might be good as a linux box. Despite it's rather low performance it does have rather low power consumption so it's good if you need something up 24/7 to use as a server of some kind. Still the idle power consumption should have been lower. I sure wouldn't use it as a desktop machine either except perhaps with a lightweight window manager like XFCE or ICEWM. Probably give me an excuse to get into blackbox again though
.
. Score
0
JohnnyLucky
September 2, 2009 4:30:08 PM
Anonymous
September 2, 2009 4:40:58 PM
raptor550
September 2, 2009 5:29:19 PM
Anonymous
September 2, 2009 6:09:15 PM
I know Nano is not a fantastic performer, but it´s not intended to be. Ok you´re comparing two system from shuttle, but the article is favoring Intel a little too much, wich they don´t really need. If you took systems using faster Nanos with newer chipsets, the result would be much different.
The test obviously should have been done using XP or Some XFCE distro too.
Power consumption IS low and most systems like these will spend a huge amount of time idling around.
C´mon, VIA should receive some appreciation, at least it´s an option besides Intel and AMD, which is good.
The test obviously should have been done using XP or Some XFCE distro too.
Power consumption IS low and most systems like these will spend a huge amount of time idling around.
C´mon, VIA should receive some appreciation, at least it´s an option besides Intel and AMD, which is good.
Score
-1
megahunter
September 2, 2009 6:22:16 PM
radnor
September 2, 2009 6:51:52 PM
Major7up
September 2, 2009 9:20:20 PM
Crashman
September 2, 2009 9:56:48 PM
jeffunitWhy use an 850watt power supply, when it is only drawing a maximum of 50 watts? Sure it is 80+, but the efficiency graph that is referred to starts at 20% load, which is 170w dc, which isabout 188w ac. Since this system is using about 1/4 of that power, the load is roughly 5%. There are 80+ power supplies rated at 200w or so. I am certain the celeron would use significantly less power when paired with a reasonable power supply.This was the same problem with tomshardware reviewing the intel atom, last year. They picked some monster power supply, which was inefficient at low power loads.Looking around, I found http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=771a 200w 80+ power supply for $55. I am sure there are others.
The smallest power supply the lab had was 300W. With the Celeron system, the 300W power supply drew 3W more than the 850W power supply. So even at 50W output, the Corsair power unit was more efficient than a "more appropriately sized unit". Tom's didn't get a chance to run the Shuttle power supply on the Celeron board because it didn't have ATX12V or enough molex outputs to add an adapter.
bollux78I know Nano is not a fantastic performer, but it´s not intended to be. Ok you´re comparing two system from shuttle, but the article is favoring Intel a little too much, wich they don´t really need. If you took systems using faster Nanos with newer chipsets, the result would be much different.The test obviously should have been done using XP or Some XFCE distro too.Power consumption IS low and most systems like these will spend a huge amount of time idling around. C´mon, VIA should receive some appreciation, at least it´s an option besides Intel and AMD, which is good.
Little appreciation for a system that had to be reloaded and retested several times over the period of an entire work week because of compatibility issues perhaps?
Score
-2
rambo117
September 2, 2009 10:57:39 PM
WheelsOfConfusion
September 3, 2009 12:06:19 AM
The X27D was a poor choice for comparison because there's no dual-core Nano on the market. It's especially puzzling because the X27 with an Atom 230 is also available from Shuttle, and looks like a better apples-to-apples comparison because it's not dual-core. That way the results of Nano vs. Atom wouldn't have any ambiguity due to the number of processing cores. Failing that, the X29 (non-fanless version) with the 1.6 GHz Nano would at least be a straight clock-for-clock comparison: in this one the Nano not only has a one core handicap, it also has a 600MHz speed disadvantage (even worse against the Celeron). So the X27 vs. X29 would appear to be a much more meaningful test. As it is, this article is less informative for all the different variables, like Car and Driver pitting a Jaguar XF against a BWM 750li.
Are you guys limited to the two systems Shuttle decided to send you for a review? If so, I kind of have to ask what the point is of comparing them directly.
Are you guys limited to the two systems Shuttle decided to send you for a review? If so, I kind of have to ask what the point is of comparing them directly.
Score
0
Crashman
September 3, 2009 3:58:48 AM
WheelsOfConfusion said:
The X27D was a poor choice for comparison because there's no dual-core Nano on the market. It's especially puzzling because the X27 with an Atom 230 is also available from Shuttle, and looks like a better apples-to-apples comparison because it's not dual-core. That way the results of Nano vs. Atom wouldn't have any ambiguity due to the number of processing cores. Failing that, the X29 (non-fanless version) with the 1.6 GHz Nano would at least be a straight clock-for-clock comparison: in this one the Nano not only has a one core handicap, it also has a 600MHz speed disadvantage (even worse against the Celeron). So the X27 vs. X29 would appear to be a much more meaningful test. As it is, this article is less informative for all the different variables, like Car and Driver pitting a Jaguar XF against a BWM 750li. Are you guys limited to the two systems Shuttle decided to send you for a review? If so, I kind of have to ask what the point is of comparing them directly.
Please read the introduction, then the conclusion. Shuttle sent these to promote the efficiency of its Nano system, a system so weak that its efficiency is lower than the Atom system they sent in spite of its lower power consumption.
Seeing that the two systems Shuttle sent were so far apart, and both target the basic office-type desktop market, a three-way comparison was set up with the basic office Celeron system as the baseline. The concept: To determine if the power-savers were fast enough and responsive enough to preserve a reasonable computing experience. The Atom was, the Nano wasn't.
Of course the idea was to test typical office applications, including web apps and MS Office. The VIA chipset wouldn't run with that benchmark suite, because the graphics driver crashed. An older version was tried of both the driver and the benchmark suite, and more problems came about. A test of the Nano's 64-bit capability was also in order, but 64-bit Windows required a patch be applied to the installation DVD. That's not something a normal small office administrator would do.
So, from the office standpoint, the Nano will remain a flop at least until Windows 7 is released later this month.
Score
0
WheelsOfConfusion
September 3, 2009 5:04:02 AM
HalfHuman
September 3, 2009 7:41:20 AM
CrashmanPlease read the introduction, then the conclusion. Shuttle sent these to promote the efficiency of its Nano system, a system so weak that its efficiency is lower than the Atom system they sent in spite of its lower power consumption.Seeing that the two systems Shuttle sent were so far apart, and both target the basic office-type desktop market, a three-way comparison was set up with the basic office Celeron system as the baseline. The concept: To determine if the power-savers were fast enough and responsive enough to preserve a reasonable computing experience. The Atom was, the Nano wasn't.Of course the idea was to test typical office applications, including web apps and MS Office. The VIA chipset wouldn't run with that benchmark suite, because the graphics driver crashed. An older version was tried of both the driver and the benchmark suite, and more problems came about. A test of the Nano's 64-bit capability was also in order, but 64-bit Windows required a patch be applied to the installation DVD. That's not something a normal small office administrator would do.So, from the office standpoint, the Nano will remain a flop at least until Windows 7 is released later this month.
i still think that using vista on this sort of machines is quite a bad idea and i think nobody in their right mind would run vista ultimate on a nettop. we already knew that vista is a hog and that these systems are underpowered. we need to know if they can do the job under apropriate conditions (right os, right tasks etc). i never had imagined that 1ghz nano could be faster than atom dual core running at 1,6ghz. i strongly feel that this review must be remade to have something usefull. i've a regular reader the articles on thg and apreciate the work but this article disapointed me. i'm sure you can make it right.
Score
0
jeffunit
September 3, 2009 12:31:06 PM
CrashmanThe smallest power supply the lab had was 300W. With the Celeron system, the 300W power supply drew 3W more than the 850W power supply. So even at 50W output, the Corsair power unit was more efficient than a "more appropriately sized unit". Tom's didn't get a chance to run the Shuttle power supply on the Celeron board because it didn't have ATX12V or enough molex outputs to add an adapter.Little appreciation for a system that had to be reloaded and retested several times over the period of an entire work week because of compatibility issues perhaps?
It is sad that you reviewed a motherboard without an appropriate power supply. Even the 300w power supply is rated at 80% efficient at loads of 20% of 300, which is 60 watts DC. If you are going to test low power motherboards, and report on their power usage, you need to have a decent power supply that has reasonable efficiency at the load it is used for.
I have seen many 80+ power supplies have efficiencies of 60% or less at loads below 20%. It is really nice that the corsair power supply is so efficient at these low loads, but unless you have measured its efficiency at these loads, nobody really knows how much power the motherboard draws. And yet you show power consumption for the board. Is the corsair 80% efficient at that point, or 60% efficient, or even less? Nobody knows.
The same issue came up a year ago, see
http://www.formortals.com/tomshardware-botches-intel-at...
I would have hoped that tomshardware would have learned from their mistakes.
Score
-1
americanbrian
September 3, 2009 7:24:57 PM
I don't mind the power supply, they both used the same one so penalties should be roughly evenly distributed, maybe.
Actually it sounds stupid when I think about it more, if the PSU is more efficient when the power draw is increased, then it would actually skew the results in favour of the atom and the celeron. completely. So I take that back. I object too.
BUT, I object even more to the OS. I bet shuttle didn't ship it to toms with vista on. either of them. the conclusion is completely off base.
It will perform productive tasks with the supplied OS I am sure. And again Photoshop? what is with that.
Lets face it. these are not office machines specifically. But they could easily do the job if you aren't an idiot who is gonna bog them down with useless software.
Actually it sounds stupid when I think about it more, if the PSU is more efficient when the power draw is increased, then it would actually skew the results in favour of the atom and the celeron. completely. So I take that back. I object too.
BUT, I object even more to the OS. I bet shuttle didn't ship it to toms with vista on. either of them. the conclusion is completely off base.
It will perform productive tasks with the supplied OS I am sure. And again Photoshop? what is with that.
Lets face it. these are not office machines specifically. But they could easily do the job if you aren't an idiot who is gonna bog them down with useless software.
Score
-1
Anonymous
September 3, 2009 7:45:32 PM
---HWiNFO32---
Intel Pentium U2700 1,2 GHz (800MHz FSB, 2MB L2 cache)
Single-Thread:
ALU: 15 934
FPU: 10 163
----------------------------------------------------
Intel Atom N270 1.6 GHz (HT, 533MHz FSB, 512 KB L2)
Single-Thread:
ALU: 10 267
FPU: 5 718
Multi-Thread mód:
ALU: 15 339
FPU: 10 755
----------------------------------------------------
Intel Atom N280 1.66 GHz (HT,667MHz FSB, 512 KB L2))
Single-Thread:
ALU: 11 231
FPU: 6094
Multi-Thread:
ALU: 16 062
FPU: 11 187
-------------------------------------------------------
Intel Atom 330 1.6 GHz Dual-Core (HT, 533MHz FSB, 512 KB L2)
Single-Thread:
ALU: 10 798
FPU: 5 851
Multi-Thread mód:
ALU: 31 080
FPU: 21 608
-------------------------------------------------------
VIA Nano L2200 1.6GHz (800MHz VIA V4 FSB,1MB L2 cache)
Single-threaded:
ALU: 16 049
FPU: 13 785
-------------------------------------------------------
VIA Nano U2250 1.3+GHz@1.6GHz capable (800MHz VIA V4 FSB,1MB L2 cache)
Single-threaded:
ALU: 15 859
FPU: 13 650
Intel Pentium U2700 1,2 GHz (800MHz FSB, 2MB L2 cache)
Single-Thread:
ALU: 15 934
FPU: 10 163
----------------------------------------------------
Intel Atom N270 1.6 GHz (HT, 533MHz FSB, 512 KB L2)
Single-Thread:
ALU: 10 267
FPU: 5 718
Multi-Thread mód:
ALU: 15 339
FPU: 10 755
----------------------------------------------------
Intel Atom N280 1.66 GHz (HT,667MHz FSB, 512 KB L2))
Single-Thread:
ALU: 11 231
FPU: 6094
Multi-Thread:
ALU: 16 062
FPU: 11 187
-------------------------------------------------------
Intel Atom 330 1.6 GHz Dual-Core (HT, 533MHz FSB, 512 KB L2)
Single-Thread:
ALU: 10 798
FPU: 5 851
Multi-Thread mód:
ALU: 31 080
FPU: 21 608
-------------------------------------------------------
VIA Nano L2200 1.6GHz (800MHz VIA V4 FSB,1MB L2 cache)
Single-threaded:
ALU: 16 049
FPU: 13 785
-------------------------------------------------------
VIA Nano U2250 1.3+GHz@1.6GHz capable (800MHz VIA V4 FSB,1MB L2 cache)
Single-threaded:
ALU: 15 859
FPU: 13 650
Score
0
Crashman
September 3, 2009 10:12:02 PM
americanbrianI don't mind the power supply, they both used the same one so penalties should be roughly evenly distributed, maybe. Actually it sounds stupid when I think about it more, if the PSU is more efficient when the power draw is increased, then it would actually skew the results in favour of the atom and the celeron. completely. So I take that back. I object too.BUT, I object even more to the OS. I bet shuttle didn't ship it to toms with vista on. either of them. the conclusion is completely off base.It will perform productive tasks with the supplied OS I am sure. And again Photoshop? what is with that.Lets face it. these are not office machines specifically. But they could easily do the job if you aren't an idiot who is gonna bog them down with useless software.
Tom's hardware knew about that article, but not every power supply is dropping to 60% efficiency at 20% load. Take a look at the charts for the tested power supply and imagine what the curve would look like if it were extended, then take the fact that it was more efficient at 30-50W than the smaller power supplies on hand.
Score
-1
papasmurf
September 3, 2009 10:55:50 PM
jeffunit
September 3, 2009 11:48:13 PM
CrashmanTom's hardware knew about that article, but not every power supply is dropping to 60% efficiency at 20% load. Take a look at the charts for the tested power supply and imagine what the curve would look like if it were extended, then take the fact that it was more efficient at 30-50W than the smaller power supplies on hand.
As you know, the 80+ people start their efficiency graph at 20% load. I have not tested this corsair powersupply. However, silentpcreview.com has tested a slightly older corsair 80+ 650w
power supply. See http://www.silentpcreview.com/article813-page4.html
At 34w ac, it was 62.9% efficient. That is a load of 3.2%.
At 59w ac, it was 70.9% efficient. That is a load of 6.3%.
The unit you used was 80+ gold, however it was an 850w unit.
Since you didn't measure the dc wattage, you have no idea how efficient the unit was, but assuming 100% efficiency, it was loaded at 5.8%. The power supply I selected from silentpcreview.com
was the first corsair unit I found there. All the power supplies that I have looked at have pretty poor efficiency at low loads.
Why don't you measure the efficiency of the 850w corsair, when it is putting out 50w? I will bet you a beer it is under 70%.
In addition, the 80+ people often test the unit at 240vac, because almost all power supplies are more efficient with higher voltage. At 120vac, power supplies are typically 2-3% less efficient. Looking at the specific silentpcreview.com article, shows a drop of 3% for this specific corsair 650 unit.
Score
0
jeffunit
September 4, 2009 12:04:29 AM
- 1 / 2
- 2
- Newest
Related resources
- How do i power an external harddrive sufficiently enough to work via a mini usb port attached to a tablet? Forum
- VIA's new low-power C7 processor Forum
- 350 watt power supply is good enough for intel cpu i5 processor Forum
- Is 650 watt power supply enough for an i7 processor and an nvidia card Forum
- More resources
!