Proving that it too can work PowerPoint, Nvidia has churned out a counter to Intel's anti-Ion campaign - with thanks again to bit-tech for the head's up - explaining why Nvidia reckons Intel is barking up the wrong tree.
Nvidia's document follows similar tactics to Intel, criticising the "4-year old 3-chip design" employed in Intel's platform. Nvidia's "modern 2-chip design," on the other hand, uses 55 per cent less area while also offering 10 times the performance. The gaming and CUDA-computing power of Ion's GPU cited as particular benefits.
As you might recall, Intel has already countered Nvidia's arguments in favour of Ion's superior performance, saying "neither gaming nor video transcoding are relevant to netbook and nettop users." Nvidia's challenge, it seems, will be to convince OEMs and consumers that is important.
Nvidia also points out that while Intel's next generation Atom offerings will offer improved performance, it still won't allow the, to compete with Ion and will 'force' customers to adopt an all-Intel solution. No doubt a major reason that Ion 2 will support VIA Nano CPUs as well as Atom - should Intel allow the latter's use.
Intel's power-use claims are also disputed, Nvidia calling the maximum theoretical draw (i.e. each platform's TDP) a "very poor measurement" - which it is to an extent. Nvidia's testing of a 945GSE-based system offering two hours, 40 minutes of batter life, versus two hours, 31 minutes for one using Ion in MobileMark 2007. Or, to put it another way, a negligible difference in real-world power consumption.
Let's make this simple folks; both Intel's own Atom platforms and Ion have their places. OEM's should use whichever suits the target audience for the products in which they are to be used best. Is that so hard?
Nvidia's document follows similar tactics to Intel, criticising the "4-year old 3-chip design" employed in Intel's platform. Nvidia's "modern 2-chip design," on the other hand, uses 55 per cent less area while also offering 10 times the performance. The gaming and CUDA-computing power of Ion's GPU cited as particular benefits.
As you might recall, Intel has already countered Nvidia's arguments in favour of Ion's superior performance, saying "neither gaming nor video transcoding are relevant to netbook and nettop users." Nvidia's challenge, it seems, will be to convince OEMs and consumers that is important.
Nvidia also points out that while Intel's next generation Atom offerings will offer improved performance, it still won't allow the, to compete with Ion and will 'force' customers to adopt an all-Intel solution. No doubt a major reason that Ion 2 will support VIA Nano CPUs as well as Atom - should Intel allow the latter's use.
Intel's power-use claims are also disputed, Nvidia calling the maximum theoretical draw (i.e. each platform's TDP) a "very poor measurement" - which it is to an extent. Nvidia's testing of a 945GSE-based system offering two hours, 40 minutes of batter life, versus two hours, 31 minutes for one using Ion in MobileMark 2007. Or, to put it another way, a negligible difference in real-world power consumption.
Let's make this simple folks; both Intel's own Atom platforms and Ion have their places. OEM's should use whichever suits the target audience for the products in which they are to be used best. Is that so hard?
No comments:
Post a Comment