Nvidia Ion to Support VIA Nano Later This Year
Next news- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (17) |
- Share
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.
Source : Tom's Hardware US
Sponsored links
Best offers
|
Core i7 I7-920 Quad Core Processor... | $310.00 STAPLES More info |
|
Core i5 750 Qaud Core Processor... | $199.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Quad... | $169.99 TigerDirect More info |
|
Phenom II X2 550 Dual Core Processor... | $90.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
Core i7-860 Quad Core Processor... | $279.99 Newegg.com More info |
AES-NI Performance Analyzed; Limited To 32nm Core i5 CPUs
Starting with its dual-core Clarkfield-based Core i5 processors, Intel is introducing AES New Instructions to its architecture. We've already seen great benefits from a number of synthetic benchmarks, but what are the real-life advantages of this tech? Read More
-
Phenom II X2 555 Vs. Pentium G6950: New Budget Dual-Core Titans
AMD is launching a broad spectrum of new CPUs today. And while most are simple speed bumps, today we're pitting its fastest dual-core model, the Phenom II X2 555 Black Edition, against Intel's LGA 1156-based Pentium G6950 to see who rules for under $100. Read More
-
Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: January '10
December was a somewhat slow month in the CPU world, but January promises to inject a great deal of excitement into the sector with some major announcements. We discuss some of the potential changes and make our recommendations in this month's article. Read More
All performance charts
- Cooler Master's Monstrous V10 CPU Cooler
- Intel Sues Nvidia; Nvidia Says Intel is Afraid
- Tom's and AMD Overclocking Contest Opens!
- via nano
- via nano vs nvidia ion
- power consumption atom ion
- nano or atom
- via nano ion
- via nano processor
- nvidia ion vs intel atom
- nvidia ion news
- ion platform
- nvidia ion low power consumption
- ion chipset atom
- via nano or intel atom processor
- intel nano processor
- is the atom better than the via nano
- how many nvidia ion platform






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
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 ANYMOREIntel: Well you violated my trust!nVidia: VIA was never this neglectful to me....=P
ahah, so true, so true.
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).
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
You 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.
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.
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.
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.