Related articles

• GeForce 9400M Versus 945GC

  A Three Year Age Difference We already described the characteristics of the GeForce 9400/9300 chipset when we first tested it—see Move Over G45: Nvidia's GeForce 9300 Arrives. The GeForce 9400M is an almost identical product, featuring the same GeForce 9-series core with its 16 stream processors. The biggest difference we can find between the desktop 9400 and its mobile version is simply the clock frequencies of the core and shaders: 580 MHz /1,400 MHz for the 9400, and 450 MHz/1,100 MHz for the 9400M. Aside from the slower clock speed, which is necessary in order to keep power consumption low, the features we liked on the 9400 are still there: DDR2-800 or DDR3-1333 memory compatibility, support for all Intel processors with 1066 MHz FSB maximum (so far there are no mobile Intel CPUs with a faster FSB), support for dual-link DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort interfaces, Gigabit Ethernet, an HD Azalia audio codec, a maximum of 12 USB 2.0 ports, and 3 Gbps SATA ports. As for peripheral interfaces, the mobile GeForce manages one PCI Express x16 slot, four PCIe x1 slots, and five PCI slots. The GeForce uses a 65 nm fabrication process, and has a total die surface of 1225 mm2 (35 x 35 mm). Nvidia rates its TDP at 12 W. The 945GC chipset is part of the large “Lakeport” family of Intel chipsets, which has no fewer than seven members. If you count their “mobile” cousins from the Calistoga family, there are a total of 13 memebers. That’s a lot of core logic, but the differences between each model are subtle. All you need to know is that the 945GC is the chipset Intel sells coupled with its Atom desktop processors (the 230 and 330). For its netbook mobile Atom processor (N270), on the other hand, Intel requires that its 945GSE chipset be used. GeForce: Smaller, With Better Performance These chipsets are far from being brand new. The first representatives of the Lakeport family hit the market in Spring 2005 (early 2006 for the Calistogas). One of the consequences of their advanced age is that the 945GC uses a 90 nm fabrication process. The 945GC is also not a single-chip product like the GeForce 9400M. The 82945GC northbridge has to be attached to a 82801GB southbridge, also known as ICH7. The consequences of this are twofold. First, the 945GC + ICH7 combination eats up a lot of real estate: the northbridge measures 34 x 34 mm, and the southbridge 31 x 31 mm. Add a few square millimeters of space between the two ICs and you end up with twice the surface area taken up on the PCB when compared with the GeForce 9400. The second impact of the older design is that total power consumption is high. According to Intel, the 945GC’s TDP is 22.2 W, and the Atom 230 + 945GC + ICH7 platform has a TDP of 29.5 W. The GeForce 9400M claims a TDP of only 12 W. The Atom itself consumes 4 W, putting the Ion at 16 W total—just above half the TDP of the Intel platform. Finally, let’s look at performance. The 945GC’s integrated graphics core is the well known (and not necessarily for good reasons) GMA950. It’s DirectX 9- and Shader Model 2.0-compatible, clocked at 400 MHz, and armed with four pixel shaders, one vertex shader, and four ROPs. In other words, it’s from the pre-DirectX 10 unified shader era. It uses part of the main memory as video memory. On the D945GCLF, the inclusion of a single DIMM slot reduces bandwidth to approximately 5 GB/s. By comparison, the GeForce 9400M, with its DDR3-1066 slot, has 8.3 GB/s of bandwidth. Theoretically, out of the starting gate, the GeForce 9400M has an enormous advantage over its only current competitor. But will that theoretical lead hold up in practice? Isn’t so much graphics power for a CPU as weak as the Atom casting pearls before swine? And is the Nvidia chipset good at anything besides graphics?

• Zotac's Ion Board On Windows 7: Nvidia Re-Arms Intel’s Atom

  We’ve done a ton of Atom-oriented content, from reviewing the processor’s merits on its own, to pitting it against Athlon and Nano, to testing it in a ready-made machine and evaluating performance under Windows Vista. When we say the CPU is an enabler in the netbook market, but sorely lacking as a solution to your desktop needs, we’re basing that judgment on almost a year’s worth of power and performance data. Of course, we’re also grouping Intel’s accompanying 945G-series chipsets in with that opinion, since they have been, up until now, the only core logic accompanying Atom processors. Earlier this year, we were able to take a sneak peek at the first platform with Atom support able to go up against Intel’s own anemic Atom-oriented chipsets: Nvidia’s Ion. First encountered at this year’s CES, we were impressed by just how much modern connectivity and GPU muscle the company had crammed into its proof-of-concept design. We were told to expect more Ion-related news in the months to come. Now, almost six months later (and after the announcement of Acer’s AspireRevo nettop), we’re seeing the first mini-ITX motherboard based on the Ion concept, which means the do-it-yourselfers out there now have their own path to pursing an Ion-based platform. Will they want to, though? That’s the question we’re setting out to answer here. Nvidia’s Ion: Stepping Out That first Ion concept was truly stacked. It included lots of USB 2.0, analog 7.1-channel output, optical output, DVI, HDMI, Gigabit Ethernet, and SATA storage connectivity. As you already know, that box’s capabilities come from the Nvidia GeForce 9300 chipset, which the company is now calling its Ion Graphics Processor (IGP—get it?). As a quick recap, the GeForce 9300 (or IGP as we’ll call it from here on out) is a single-chip solution that combines the functionality common to most northbridge and southbridge chipset components. Exceptional I/O includes support for up to five PCI slots, six SATA 3 Gb/s ports, a total of 20 PCI Express 2.0 lanes across five links (1 x 16-lane and 4 x 1-lane), integrated Gigabit Ethernet, 12 USB 2.0 ports, and HD Audio. The northbridge-y features include a dual-channel memory controller able to accommodate either DDR2-800 modules or DDR3 at speeds of up to 1,333 MHz. Nvidia claims front side bus speeds of up to 1,333 MHz, supporting Atom, Celeron, Pentium 4, and Core 2 processors. Temper your excitement about those modern memory and bus settings, though. The Atom 330 soldered onto Zotac’s board sports a 533 MHz FSB and communicates with DDR2 modules-only. And then there’s the integrated graphics. Derived from Nvidia’s G86 GPU, the IGP sports 16 shader processors and relies on shared system memory. The graphics core runs at 450 MHz while the shaders operate at 1,100 MHz—down a bit, actually, from the GeForce 9300 we reviewed last October. With the chipset specifics out of the way, let’s take a look at how Zotac has turned Nvidia’s IGP into a mini-ITX motherboard.

• ConclusIon

  ”Winning” would be a good word to describe how we feel about the Ion platform Nvidia has put together. They’ve come up with the ideal complement to the Intel Atom processor—putting the two together results in a system that’s extremely compact, very affordable, and impressively flexible. In the space taken up by a carton of cigarettes, they’ve put a complete PC (except for the external power brick) capable of handling the vast majority of the tasks we want today’s computers to perform. This includes Web browsing and office applications, of course, but also occasional games—even recent, demanding titles—and even HD video playback. From this point of view, Ion is not very far from being the ideal home theater PC—one that can finally find a home in most living rooms without being an eyesore because of its size, and without being a nuisance because of its noise level. And remember, our judgment is based on a reference platform, with all the rough edges still on it, and with no particular visual-design effort behind it. You can easily imagine what an inspired manufacturer could do with these basic components. Indeed, the rumors we’ve heard that Apple may be planning to use Ion as the foundation of the next Mac minis or Apple TVs are very interesting. Let’s hope that many other manufacturers are thinking along those lines, and that they will launch innovative products too. Let’s hope. Because Ion’s future is not as rosy as we may have made it sound. That’s not because of any technological shortcomings, but rather because of the position Nvidia is in, where Intel is concerned. By launching Ion, Nvidia has just stirred up the tranquil waters of the placid pond Intel has planned for itself this year. The netbook wave in 2008 was really more of a tidal wave, and it filled Intel’s pockets, since they were the exclusive supplier of the components. Even during an economic crisis, 2009 is looking like another good year for netbooks and nettops, and Intel won’t want to let anyone else have a piece of this very large pie. According to certain persistent rumors—which Intel is denying—Intel is trying to put a lock on the market by refusing to sell Atom processors independently of its 945GC (or GSE) chipsets (Ed.: although, to be fair, Intel insisted to us at CES that it'd absolutely sell Atom by itself). So, for each Ion computer built, the manufacturers would have to pay for an Intel chipset they wouldn’t use. That additional expense might be enough to dissuade manufacturers from getting on the Ion bandwagon, especially in the netbook market, where every dollar counts. And that’s not all. Intel also plans to renew its basic Atom platform, dumping the weak 945 chipset and replacing it with the GN40, derived from the G45. With its 45 nm fabrication process and resulting low power consumption, HD video decoding capabilities, better 3D performance and more, this new platform could pull the rug out from under the Ion platform. Well, it’s time for us to put away our crystal ball. Only the future will tell whether the Ion will be the Atom’s best friend.