Good.

Keep moving forward nVidia.

Nice, maybe with nvidia's help we may actually see some nano systems floating around

Hmmm an Ion Nano. I like the sound of that.

WTF Didnt Toms even do a review on the Atom and *proved* an underclocked athlon has a lower total system power usage than an Atom system????

Atom sucks.

Go Nano! The Atom Smasher

Great! Definitely my way to put a vote against Intel!
Sorry to say but the big company's monopoly is causing trouble in the nation for healthy competition, and without knowing it they are stopping progress.

I'm glad Nvidia and Via 'chip' together there,

I only fear Intel will be ready with their newer 'Atom' and GPU+memory controller on chip (not on die).

Sounds like nVidia is getting in bed with someone else because Intel wont play nice anymore. I swear these companies are like a soap opera now:

nVidia: YOU'RE NEVER THERE FOR ME ANYMORE
Intel: Well you violated my trust!
nVidia: VIA was never this neglectful to me....


=P

ahah, so true, so true.

I dont have a problem with Intel's "monopoly".. I just bought a Q6600 on sale for $160 a few weeks back.. If thats a monopoly, then we need more of them..

This partnering cause anyone else to think about the rumor of Nvidia's temptation towards CPU design? Would be kind of cool if they could actually make some competition for Intel seeing as how DAAMIT can't seem to figure out how to.

I may be mistaken...but I was pretty sure Jen-Hsun Huang said the Nano was one generation behind the Atom.

1. It is only that price because they are still trying to undercut AMD. AMD can't claim to be the economical, power friendly choice (like in the past) if Intel is faster for anywhere near the same price.

2. It was 'on sale' by virtue of the bulk orders that suppliers place, and the fact that the place you bought it from may have been overstocked. That end of the equation has very little to do with Intel or whether they have a monopoly. However, for the reason that the original price to the supplier was so low...see #1.

You take away AMD and Via and that 'on sale' price will soon equal today's msrp.

Please find a native english speaker to proof-read your comments before posting. I think I understand what you are gettiing at, but you should write more clearly.

PS tone gets lost in the writen word; don't try to be sarcastic or satiricle... just say what you mean.

That was a serious, well written response.
Unless you are reading another post and replied and quoted that one.

P.S. Tone can be read in the written word, it is just harder to do.

Can Apple sued Nvidia for taking 'Ion "Nano"'. lol just a thought.

Thank you Capt. Obvious. I wasn't aware that if you got rid of all the competition, a single company would have a monopoly.

Intel doesn't have a monopoly on the processor market.

I said tone gets lost. I didn't say it was impostible to get across. As for the comment, the writer made no attempt to explain why the on-sale price would eventually come to be the msrp (standard price) without competion. In fact, it would be hard to imagin prices coming down unless they were forced to do so because of competiion. Although the writer made no real arguments about how competion works because it was unclear, I assumed he was trying to make that point. That said, if he had a point it was unclear because he didn't proof read well enough.

1. impostible? really?

2. I'm a US citizen and have been a native speaker my whole life.

3. If the sale price ends up equaling the old msrp, it means prices went up, not down. No competition needed for that.

4. The fact that the other guy tried to make fun of me for pointing out the obvious means it wasn't hard for others to understand.