|
VIA Ultra Mobility Platform Power Consumption Figures |
|
Written by Bjorn Stromberg
|
|
Friday, 25 May 2007 |
Since I had my chart making program open I decided to chart out the power consumption numbers that Chippy just posted on UMPCPortal. I find it's easier to understand numbers when I visualize them. From a pure performance vs power consumption standpoint, it's hard to justify the massive battery life hit you will take on the Samsung Q1P when both systems are able to perform their tasks well.
As Chippy noted, the main focus for VTF 2007 is Ultra Mobility and we're expecting to see some new things from VIA there. The date when VIA will reveal their updates to the VIA Ultra Mobility Platform, June 6th, is only two weeks away. I'm expecting a great show.
|
|
|
Visitor
Friday, 25 May 2007
Why are you comparing alwyes with Pentium M? Compare with Centrino Core Solo. Compare apples with apples, not with something desigend 3 years ago. Are you a promoter of VIA CPU?
Visitor
Friday, 25 May 2007
Oh, ja, I forgot, you are a VIA guy. VIA sucks in performance, so you have to show that it is better in consumption, but compared to old Intel technology."Viva VIA"
Visitor
Saturday, 26 May 2007
This is a fair comparison because it's comparing the battery life on Samsung Q1 machines. There is no Centrino Core Solo for the Q1. It would be a more complete comparison if the Q1 U-V with the A110 processor was added to the graph.
Visitor
Saturday, 26 May 2007
If we talk about the UMPC platform (as titled), it is fair to include and Sony Vaio UX280P in the comparison.
Pentium M is 3-5 years old. VIA's CPU is new one and for fair comparison it should be compared with Intel Core Solo CPU.
Here is a web site with some comparison between VIA 1.5Ghz and Vaio 1.2Ghz Core solo: http://meansquare.info/UXReview/vsOQO2.html
From the results you can see that VIA CPU does not come even close to Intel Core Solo.
So with all yours "WOWs" about VIA you mislead the potential buyer and give them wrong impressions about VIA platform. Intel Core Solo is much superior CPU for UMPC and price wise the difference is not too big, but the performance is almost 2.5-3 times better. And the power consumption is very similar to the VIA’s one.
Visitor
Saturday, 26 May 2007
As the original author and tester I'd just like to say that the article is intended to highlight differences between 2 common UMPC platforms. Taking the Q1 hardware is the only way to do this becuase you can guarantee that most variables (screen, wifi, hdd, memory, mobo quality) are all kept constant leaving the silicon as one of the few variables.
For example, if you compared the Q1b against the Flipstart, you would have even worse figures for Intel. If you compared the Amtek T700, the Pentium would look better. Its like comparing a Land Rover and Mini just to compare a 4.5 litre and 1.6 litre engine. Not really a valid test.
Core Solo is moving out of the picture for UMPCs now that Intel are producing dedicated silicon. Comparing McCaslin (Pentium-M based!) with VIA C7 would be the best possible test but thats not possible as of today.
Steve
Visitor
Thursday, 31 May 2007
Oh well, hey it's a nice looking chart. Send me some traffic from Asia.
Digitalnomad
ruggednotebooksblog.com