Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Nvidia Ion to Support VIA Nano Later This Year

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 17 comments

The Intel Atom by itself is a mild-mannered, rather modest processor. Its special ability is its low power consumption, but that by itself doesn’t mean that it has to be part of a low powered system.

We’ve seen first hand just how the Nvidia Ion chipset is able to make an Intel Atom system a viable day-to-day machine for most uses, multimedia included.

Nvidia isn’t going to just limit its Ion platform to Intel chips, as it is currently working on a second generation Ion that will support a greater range of CPUs. Digitimes reports that the VIA Nano will soon be paired with the Ion.

In a previous interview, Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang had good things to say about VIA’s mobile processor. Huang described VIA’s Nano processor as “fabulous,” and perhaps “architecturally one generation beyond Atom.”

The problem, he said, is beyond the hardware: “The challenge in the complexity of the PC is the software outside of the processor. The amount of software and hardware outside of the CPU is so much, unless you have tier-one capabilities, you can’t build a tier-one-capable machine. That’s really VIA’s weakness. They don’t have the resources to build the GPU in the system to be competitive.”

Of course, that's where Nvidia hopes to step in with its next Ion. Perhaps we'll see first signs of the Ion 2 at this year's Computex in July.

Discuss
Display all 17 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 3 Hide
    sacre , February 20, 2009 9:32 PM
    Good.

    Keep moving forward nVidia.
  • 0 Hide
    Hatecrime69 , February 20, 2009 9:42 PM
    Nice, maybe with nvidia's help we may actually see some nano systems floating around
  • 1 Hide
    Tekkamanraiden , February 20, 2009 10:13 PM
    Hmmm an Ion Nano. I like the sound of that.
  • -1 Hide
    cruiseoveride , February 20, 2009 11:36 PM
    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
  • -1 Hide
    Anonymous , February 20, 2009 11:51 PM
    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).
  • -1 Hide
    megajynx , February 21, 2009 12:32 AM
    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
  • 0 Hide
    sacre , February 21, 2009 1:41 AM
    megajynxSounds 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 ANYMOREIntel: Well you violated my trust!nVidia: VIA was never this neglectful to me....=P


    ahah, so true, so true.
  • -1 Hide
    blackened144 , February 21, 2009 12:09 PM
    ProDigit80Great! 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).

    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..
  • 0 Hide
    hairycat101 , February 21, 2009 2:46 PM
    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.
  • 1 Hide
    nekatreven , February 21, 2009 4:47 PM
    I may be mistaken...but I was pretty sure Jen-Hsun Huang said the Nano was one generation behind the Atom.
  • 2 Hide
    nekatreven , February 21, 2009 4:56 PM
    blackened144I 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..


    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.
  • -7 Hide
    hairycat101 , February 21, 2009 7:18 PM
    nekatreven1. 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.
  • 1 Hide
    smalltime0 , February 21, 2009 11:39 PM
    hairycat101Please 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.
  • 0 Hide
    my_name_is_earl , February 22, 2009 7:27 AM
    Can Apple sued Nvidia for taking 'Ion "Nano"'. lol just a thought.
  • -1 Hide
    Tindytim , February 22, 2009 5:09 PM
    nekatrevenYou take away AMD and Via and that 'on sale' price will soon equal today's msrp.

    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.
  • -3 Hide
    hairycat101 , February 22, 2009 8:47 PM
    smalltime0That 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.


    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 Hide
    nekatreven , February 23, 2009 12:50 PM
    hairycat101I 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.