Digitimes: New processors from Via

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20100901PD219.html

Since VIA is set to launch its dual-core Nano processor using Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company's (TSMC's) 40nm process by the end of 2010 and has already received orders from Singapore and China, the company expects the new products to help reduce its loses and turn to profits in 2011.

VIA's dual-core Nano processor will feature core frequencies of 2GHz, supporting VIA's 1333MHz V4 Bus and a built-in 2MB L2 cache with a maximum TDP of 20W, targeting mainly the notebook market. VIA is also set to launch a quad-core processor by the end of 2011 and will pair the CPU with a new VN11 chipset, which supports DirectX 11.

-40nm TSMC 2Ghz dual core by the end of 2010.

-quad core with DX11 support by the end of 2011
 

Eeqmcsq

Senior member
Jan 6, 2009
407
1
0
I think the idea of a quad core Via Nano is geeky cool, and I'd like to build an ITX sized computer with one if it ever comes on a motherboard. But when I think about it, who exactly has a use for a quad core low power CPU? Maybe a low power server for a small office/home office setup? Or maybe for the heavy multitasking netbook user...? I can understand the jump to a Nano dual core would help keep the netbook responsive with that 2nd core, but 4 cores feels like overkill.

Anyone got any other ideas for a quad core Nano?
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,812
11,166
136
Makes me wonder how competitive these CPUs are on a price/watt basis vs. China's Longsoon/Dragon processors.
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
Makes me wonder how competitive these CPUs are on a price/watt basis vs. China's Longsoon/Dragon processors.

Do you have any links to those processors?

Here is some information I found on the old 65nm Nanos. They don't list power consumption, but the idle looks pretty low.

http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/nano/

EDIT: Here are the TDPs for the 65nm Nanos. Is it just me or does the 65nm TDP to idle power consumption ratio look rather large for Nano?
 
Last edited:

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,812
11,166
136
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loongson

That's all I've got, really. Octal-core Loongson 3(Godson 3-b) will have half the clockspeed and twice the cores of the Nano quad, though interestingly, the 3-b will supposedly have the same TDP as a dual-core nano (on a 65nm process to boot, weird).

Of course, it's really a MIPS processor pretending to be an x86 processor (when used in this capacity), so there's instruction translation overhead to deal with when using a Loongson/Godson chip.
 
Last edited:

evolucion8

Platinum Member
Jun 17, 2005
2,867
3
81
But AFAIK, Transmeta was the CPU that was a MIPS CPU pretending to be an x86 CPU. VIA has an x86 license from Intel

I always dreamed to have a PICO ATX computer with a Via processor for very basic tasks in the living room,
 

Spikesoldier

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2001
6,766
0
0
low cost, quad core, low power CPU?

i see a all-in-one desktop market that would fit great into.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,812
11,166
136
But AFAIK, Transmeta was the CPU that was a MIPS CPU pretending to be an x86 CPU. VIA has an x86 license from Intel

Loongson is the development of ICT which uses what is more-or-less a ripoff of the MIPS instruction set, though ICT has licenses for it now. I think they use QEMU to run x86 binaries on Loongson-based systems. They do not, to my knowledge, run OSes compiled for x86 systems (instead they use various Linux distros and other OSes).

What Transmeta did was quite a bit different.
 

OBLAMA2009

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2008
6,574
3
0
man they are pretty behind the other majors.

the performance of their stuff is always really disappointing and buggy. i think they had an early netbook chip that really sucked. every time i checked one out in the stores it was locked up. how do they even stay in business putting stuff like that out
 
Last edited:

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,812
11,166
136
If it's cheap, it'll sell in markets where chips from AMD and Intel come with too many associated costs. You can get a "TK Fanless Mini Barebones" system featuring an 800 mhz Via EDEN N Nano for $75 + s/h on eBay. It comes with 256mb of RAM. That little puppy has onboard video (plus mpeg-2 decoder), audio, and ethernet, all you need is a 2.5" hdd and an operating system. Well, that and mouse + keyboard. And a monitor.

It probably runs like crap, but I'm sure it would do okay running a "no frills" Linux distro.
 
Last edited:

evolucion8

Platinum Member
Jun 17, 2005
2,867
3
81
There's some benchmarks that put the Via Nano in a much better light than Atom for Netbook.

http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/07/atom-nano-review.ars/3

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=597&type=expert&pid=9

"The Intel Atom processor was also impressive, just not in terms of raw power. The VIA Nano easily outpaced it nearly all of our benchmarks but the fact that our idle and load power consumption numbers were just 4 watts apart certainly raises an eyebrow. It is this extremely lower power consumption that will put the Atom CPU in MIDs and smaller devices where the VIA Nano will not be able to fit thermally. The Atom CPU still got the job done in our tests though - it just wasn't able to keep up with the superscalar design of the Nano. "

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1540/intel_atom_vs_via_nano_platform_comparo/index10.html

"Bringing our attention onto VIA; they’ve done it again. Though, not surprisingly, they have had over six years to perfect the mini-ITX standard as well as having quite a long time to refine the CPU process to increase its processing power without raising the amount of power drawn. In fact, Nano doubles the performance of C7, adds 64-bit instructions yet consumes less power.

The platform for the Nano is extremely flexible. VIA hasn’t put any constraints on itself with DVI and HDMI being possible as well as discrete VGA, HD audio and Gigabit LAN inclusions and a plethora of expansion possibilities with the CF card and Mini-PCI slot. VIA undeniably has a winner on its hands here."

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/757/14/

"The VIA Nano processor is based on superior superscalar out of order architecture, which is why it performs better than the Intel Atom processor. The VIA Nano processor beat the Intel Atom processor in every single performance benchmark we ran and that says a ton for the engineers (Centaur Technologies) who designed the Nano processor. The only area the VIA Nano didn't excel at was power consumption testing, which Intel clearly has a lead thanks in part to their advanced 45nm technology process."

http://www.trustedreviews.com/cpu-memory/review/2008/08/14/VIA-Nano-vs-Intel-Atom/p6

"Despite VIA's insistence that Nano really is faster than Atom, the results of our real world tests were still surprising. The sheer extent to which Nano beats Atom in nearly all our tests is quite compelling. Indeed, on this basis alone, there's no-contest.


Subjectively, in general use, it's the same story as well. While general desktop work on Nano feels responsive and snappy, there's a constant sluggishness when using Atom - even just moving a window can result in staccato motion.


Now, you could argue that Vista isn't a fair operating system to use for testing as it's not what Atom or Nano is designed for. Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is that using Vista on a Nano is possible whereas on Atom the experience is less satisfactory.'"
 
Oct 19, 2006
194
1
81
I am looking forward to these chips/systems. I just hope it can compete with the new AMD bobcat CPU's. Can't wait to see.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,420
293
126
Nano never did compete favorably against Atom (no matter how much reviewers "helped" it along), especially now that Atom has dual-core versions (and faster frequencies, too).

Highlights of Nano reviews:

- would not run or complete several benchmarks (it actually died on one reviewer)
- has three times the TDP of Atom while offering only 20% ~ 30% better performance
- was clocked 200MHz higher than Atom in most reviews (1.8GHz v. 1.6GHz), and used a higher FSB (800MHz v. 533MHz), which means it won't offer anywhere near 20% ~ 30% better performance at the same clocks

Read it again: THREE TIMES the power consumption, 20% ~ 30% better performance. That is not an acceptable trade-off by any measure and shows just how inferior Nano truly is. Nano could not compete with Atom WATT FOR WATT, and power consumption is all important in this class.

A couple reviews tossed-in an C2D E5200 for comparison. In power consumption class, Nano was far closer to the E5200 than it was to Atom, yet the E5200 blew it away (and the Atom, too).
 
Last edited:

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
59
91
- has three times the TDP of Atom while offering only 20% ~ 30% better performance

Just goes to show you don't ever want to find yourself competing against Intel's HKMG 45nm or 32nm when all you got to bring to the fight is 65nm.

Just no competing in that scenario.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,420
293
126
Moving to 45nm won't even do it. Intel C2D only netted about 12% ~ 15% (at most) decrease in power consumption moving from 65nm to 45nm. Nano needs to overcome a multiple of Atom's power consumption, not a mere fraction.
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
Moving to 45nm won't even do it. Intel C2D only netted about 12% ~ 15% (at most) decrease in power consumption moving from 65nm to 45nm. Nano needs to overcome a multiple of Atom's power consumption, not a mere fraction.

On those 65nm Nanos I noticed the TDP really jumps with clockspeed.

5 watts for 1.0 Ghz
6.8 watts for 1.2 Ghz-------->1.8 watts for 200 Mhz speed increase
8 watts for the 1.3+ Ghz----->1.2 watts for 100 Mhz speed increase
17 watts for the 1.6 Ghz------>9.0 watts for 300 Mhz speed increase
25 watts for the 1.8 Ghz------>8.0 watts for 200 Mhz speed increase

Maybe a 40nm 1.3 Ghz Nano would compare more favorably to 45nm atom? (although I have been told SMT on atom is really quite effective due to the "in order" execution of the intel chip)
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,420
293
126
Maybe the new Nano is much improved (Nano II /2.0 ??), I don't know. It will need to be. We'll see...
 
Last edited:

CTho9305

Elite Member
Jul 26, 2000
9,214
1
81
Just goes to show you don't ever want to find yourself competing against Intel's HKMG 45nm or 32nm when all you got to bring to the fight is 65nm.

Just no competing in that scenario.

Well, Atom is a dinky in-order machine, while Nano is a modern, out-of-order, wide superscalar processor. In terms of die area, Nano w/1MB on 65nm is 63mm^2; 65nm K8 dual core w/2x512KB cache & northbridge/memory controller is 126mm^2*... so, you can have 1 Nano + 1MB in about the same area as 1 65nm K8 + 512KB + half of the northbridge / memory controller. The cores themselves are probably pretty close in terms of area. Hans de Vries measures 14.1mm^2 for Atom + 512 KB, so anyone selling 4.5x the die area into that market (for a non-monopolist price) is going to be in a world of hurt.

I always thought comparing Nano to Atom was fairly silly; architecturally, it's closer to K8, and the power consumption is in the same ballpark (roughly 20W @ 2GHz, versus 41.2W for a BE-2350, which is a dual-core 65nm K8 @ 2GHz). I was very disappointed that none of the earlier reviewers compared it to chips it's actually more similar to; my impression from reading their microarchitecture description was that it was effectively a 5 or 6-year-late K8 rather than a real "low-power" processor. I actually wondered whether getting early access to Nano was conditional on only comparing it to Atom and the review sites just failed to mention the restriction on their "reporting".

I guess what I'm saying is, upon Nano's launch I'd rather have had a 65nm K8, and now I'd rather have a low-end 45nm AMD processor. When Nano shrinks to TSMC 40G, I'll probably find whatever low-end AMD processor is shipping to be the better choice.

*All of my K8 numbers came from sandpile.org.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,686
3,785
136
It didn't even perform like the 65nm K8. It looks like it trailed the original Pentium M Banias by 20-30%.
The lead could have been greater against the Atom, but Hyperthreading on the Atom core helps a lot.

The C7 trailed the Atom, but it was ridiculously cheap and the packaging was small.

So the end result we have:

C7 + 20-30% = Atom
Atom + 20-30% = Nano
Nano + 20-30% = Pentium M
 
Last edited:

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
59
91
http://www.via.com.tw/en/initiatives/padlock/hardware.jsp

Opinions on Via's Padlock security engine found in the Nano cpu?

My opinion is that this is part of the reason Intel bought McAfee.

Same reason they jumped on the x84_64, IMC, mutli-core, and on-die GPU trains after AMD let it be known that was where they were going.

Via says "hey we are going to put some security into our chips", Intel opens their fat checkbook and says "lets see who gets there first ".
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
My opinion is that this is part of the reason Intel bought McAfee.

Same reason they jumped on the x84_64, IMC, mutli-core, and on-die GPU trains after AMD let it be known that was where they were going.

Via says "hey we are going to put some security into our chips", Intel opens their fat checkbook and says "lets see who gets there first ".

I don't have a clue about software vs hardware in the field of security, but I did find the following information on the VIA site.

Here they are trying to make a type of distinction between software and hardware with respect to "random numbers".

http://www.via.com.tw/en/initiatives/padlock/hardware.jsp

Via.com link provided above said:
How to Generate Random Numbers

In general there are three methods for generating random numbers: software, physical sources, and Quantum uncertainty.

Software
The most common approach to generating random numbers is by using a deterministic algorithm implemented by a computer program. Such deterministic algorithms cannot generate truly random numbers (at best they are predictable and reproducible, and at worst, have bad statistical characteristics). Thus, software generators are usually called pseudo-random or quasi-random generators.

Physical Sources
A second approach to generate random numbers is to use physical phenomena that fall in between software generators and quantum based hardware generators. For example, the Linux operating system has random number generators that use entropy generated by the keyboard, mouse, interrupts, and disk drive behavior as the seed. Microsoft's® CryptGenRandom function (part of the Microsoft CryptoAPI) is similar using, for instance, mouse or keyboard timing input, that are then added to both a stored seed and various system data and user data.

While these physical activities may look random, their randomness cannot be proven, and they run the risk of generating poor entropy (or no entropy) if the sampled physical activity is dormant or repetitive. There are several potential security vulnerabilities when using such physical activities. For example, in networked applications such as browsers, the application traffic between a client and server effectively publishes the locations and sequence of the client's mouse-events. Similarly, users may enable "snap-to" options that center the mouse pointer in the center of the button to be pressed and make the click locations predictable. As a result, the entropy from mouse movements in these environments could be far less than an RNG designer expected.

Quantum Mechanism
The only truly random generator is a mechanism that detects quantum behavior at the sub-atomic level. This is because randomness is inherent in the behavior of sub-atomic particles. A quantum based hardware generator is practical, with examples that have been used including:

1) The interval between the emission of particles during radioactive decay.
This source generates only 30 bytes per second and requires a cumbersome (and dangerous?) collection of hardware.

2) The thermal noise across a semiconductor diode or resistor.
This is the approach most often used in add-on PC hardware.


3) The charge developed on a capacitor during a particular time period.

4) The frequency instabilities of multiple free running oscillators.
This approach is the basis of the VIA PadLock RNG approach.
While implemented differently than the resistor based approach, ultimately, the source of randomness is the same.

These sources have been used in a few commercially available add-on random number generator devices, none of which have achieved much visibility or use. Since they are peripheral devices such as PCI cards and serial port devices, these commercial hardware generators are expensive and cumbersome.
VIA Padlock RNG: On-Die Quantum Randomness

To address this need for good random numbers in security applications, VIA introduced the Nehemiah processor core in January 2003 that included the VIA Padlock RNG, integrating a high-performance hardware-based random number generator onto the processor die. The VIA PadLock RNG uses random electrical noise on the processor chip to generate highly random values at an extremely fast rate. It provides these numbers directly to security applications via a unique x86 instruction that has built-in multi-tasking support.

Capable of creating random numbers at rates of between 800K to 1600K bits per second, the VIA PadLock RNG addresses the needs of security applications requiring high bit rates that algorithmically increases the quality (randomness) of the entropy produced, for example by applying hashing algorithms to the output.

The VIA PadLock RNG uses a system of Asynchronous Multi-byte Generation, where the hardware generates random bits at its own pace. These accumulate into hardware buffers with no impact on program execution. Software may then read the accumulated bits at any time. This asynchronous approach allows the hardware to generate large amounts of random numbers completely overlapped with program execution. This is opposed to good software generators, which can be fast but consume a significant number of CPU cycles and have a negative affect on affecting overall system performance.

The VIA PadLock RNG has undergone comprehensive testing by leading data security firm, Cryptography Research, Inc.; results show high-performance, high-quality entropy and ease of use. See the complete Cryptography Research report, "Evaluation of VIA C3 Random Number Generator," dated February 27, 2003.

So can anyone tell me why I might to use a VIA processor over software for security? Or does this Padlock RNG simply a way to make existing security software work better?
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |