Slashdot Log In
New VIA x86 CPU Takes Aim At Intel Silverthorne
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:50 PM
from the chipping-away-at-the-prophet-margin dept.
from the chipping-away-at-the-prophet-margin dept.
Kaz writes "While not operating on the same scale as the two major CPU designers, VIA has been gaining traction in the world of UMPCs and thin clients with its Eden and C7 lines of processors. While past architectures have been considerably out-of-date in terms of modern features, the new Isaiah architecture looks to be very competitive with what AMD and Intel have lined up for future ultra-mobile products. It features an out-of-order, superscalar execution core, 64-bit support, virtualization, and even SSE3 — all on a 94M-transistor, 65nm process die. The initial offering will be single-core only, though VIA says that multi-core ability is already designed in. Is Isaiah going to replace your Core 2 system for gaming? No, but it might give Intel's Silverthorne a run for the money."
Related Stories
[+]
VIA Introduces the Nano Processor 162 comments
Vigile writes "While the VIA Isaiah architecture had been previously discussed, the new x86 processor is officially being released as the VIA Nano. The Nano marks VIA's first 64-bit, superscalar, speculative out-of-order CPU design and is being built on Fujitsu's 65nm process technology. While direct performance comparisons are still missing, the products being released could bring Intel's Atom platform to its knees: clock speeds as high as 1.8 GHz or as low as 1.0 GHz with a maximum power draw of only 5 watts! VIA's recently announced mini-note OpenBook platform is a likely candidate for the Nano the processors but they will likely find their way into mainstream desktop and notebook computers as well." Reader MojoKid contributes a link to HotHardware's story on
the chip now known as the Nano , as well as a January interview with VIA's Centaur design center president, Glenn Henry, who
"went into fairly deep detail on what VIA had in store with Isaiah."
[+]
Mobile: VIA Nano CPU Benchmarked, Beats Intel Atom 279 comments
Vigile writes "Back in May, when the Isaiah architecture was first disclosed, VIA declared a performance victory over Intel's upcoming Silverthorne technology. Since then, Isaiah has become the VIA Nano processor, and Silverthorne changed to the Intel Atom — and now we can finally see tests comparing the two technologies. The Nano's out-of-order super-scalar design is definitely an architectural leap over the Atom's in-order single-issue design, but with Intel including HyperThreading technology in their CPU the competition is closer than expected. The Nano does win the performance tests by a considerable margin, but what might be more impressive is seeing the Atom use only 4 watts of power under full load!" As reader Mierdaan points out, that's 4 watts more than at idle, for about 60 watts total.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Follow The Trend (Score:5, Interesting)
Naturally, this will first occur in low-performance devices where huge amounts of memory are not necessary. Then, it will work its way into the PC and up from there.
This is why Intel is divesting itself of discrete memory technologies - they don't want to be holding the bag when they're obsoleted by on-chip memory.
SPU manufacturers had better be ready for this because discrete CPUs will be going the way of the horse and buggy if anyone can ever do such a thing.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
For those who don't know, this is a troll. The CPU is way faster than RAM. Replacing the cache (which is large physically compared to RAM) with normal DRAM would be a disaster for performance. Go look at the original Celeron, then remember that this chip is even faster than that.
This is like saying cars will soon move back to steam, starting with small cars, because steam engines don't need large refineries to refine the oil. Technically correct on one point, but ignores lots of reality that would complete
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"If you can find a CMOS-compatible, high-density (e.g. - SRAM's six transistors per cell is toooo big) memory technology, then we're going to be at the point where we can simply replace the cache memory with on-board memory. If said on-chip memory technology is nonvolati
Re: (Score:2)
The speed increases with physical size. You simply cant fit too much cache ram on to a cpu's die.
A alternative is to use slower ram but that slows down the entire computer.
Plus it would be stupid to have to replace your CPU to upgrade your ram.
Re:Follow The Trend (Score:4, Interesting)
That doesn't necessarily matter if the DRAM were freed of external pin packaging constraints. For example, imagine if the CPU had an SRAM L1 cache, no L2 cache and on-chip DRAM main memory. With DRAM, you can internally access an entire row at one time. Using row-wide access, you could fill entire virtual memory pages into the L1 cache in a single RAM cycle.
Getting the most out of such a setup might require changes to the way the memory and cache have been managed for the last 20 years, but the total potential bandwith available from on-chip DRAM could be staggering.
Parent
IMHO, GPU's disappear first. (Score:2)
GPU's on the other hand are fairly constant in requirements. Once it can handle HDTV, it'll be good for a lot of low and medium end use - more than 90% of users, IMHO.
It's inevitable... when's the last time you bought a Floating Point Processor? Every PC needed to do FP, so it go
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On single-threaded CPU's, perhaps. But look at the Sun UltraSPARC T1 [wikipedia.org] and T2. They are multithreaded - each core rotates between up to four threads on each clock cycle. When a cache miss occurs, it simply pulls the affected thread from rotation and continues with the remaining threads while fetching the data in the background. This means cache misses have a much smaller impact on performance than they do on single-
Re:Troll. Was Re:Follow The Trend (Score:4, Interesting)
What he means is: forget on-chip cache -- on-chip main memory. IOW, instead of having main memory on the motherboard, it would be embedded into your processor, running, presumable, at the same speed as the CPU.
If you follow the trends happening in CPUs, including this one, faster CPUs aren't the big issue. The real issue is the bus. The bus is slow. The more you put on the other side of it, the better. A CPU like this new VIA CPU might be slow, but if you had sufficient memory integrated right on the CPU die, it would blow the pants off your latest 4+GHz Core 2 Duo.
Parent
Re:Troll. Was Re:Follow The Trend (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Troll. Was Re:Follow The Trend (Score:5, Informative)
Memory on the die has been done in micro controlers for years. It isn't going to happen on PCs for a long time.
"A CPU like this new VIA CPU might be slow, but if you had sufficient memory integrated right on the CPU die, it would blow the pants off your latest 4+GHz Core 2 Duo."
What is sufficient memory? 4 GB or Maybe 512 MB? There is a reason that they use Static ram for cache. It needs to be fast. So lets say that you get 512 MB on the die are you not going to allow the user to add more memory? Or how about this. You put 512 MB on the die and then let them add memory on the buss if they need more. And then you could have it swap memory from the slower buss memory in to the fast on die memory to speed everything up... Yea and we could call it a cache!
Until you can put the full address space on the die it will not work for anything but microcontrollers.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is hard and it has been done. That is exactly what the cache does.
The tasks that need the memory the most stay in the cache longest.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay well get back to me when you finish with that little detail.
"2) What's sufficient? Well, that depends on the application. Just as you have chips geared at different applications today, you'd have chips geared at even more different applications. In case you haven't noticed, we're moving away from the general purpose computing device anyhow and increasingly into more specialized devices to meet specialized needs."
Not really. PC, Laptops, and even smart phones a
Re: (Score:2)
If you follow the trends happening in CPUs, including this one, faster CPUs aren't the big issue. The real issue is the bus. The bus is slow. The more you put on the other side of it, the better. A CPU like this new VIA CPU might be slow, but if you had sufficient memory integrated right on the CPU die, it would blow the pants off your latest 4+GHz Core 2 Duo.
NOT true! Yes, on-die cache is way faster than main memory, but for most applications, you're hitting the cache most of the time. I can't find any articles right now with numbers, but I know from looking at tests on the effect of cache size on performance that at some point you hit rapidly diminishing returns for cache size increases.
It's pretty analogous to main memory vs disk latency. If you don't have enough main memory, your system bogs down swapping to disk, but if you have enough memory that tha
Sorry, brother. (Score:4, Insightful)
Then if I read right they go on to say Isaiah will be similar. Sorry, but that's not even in the same league as Silverthorn. Silverthorn will be more like a sub 5 watt product. If this is right, they'll be competing against Core 2 processors and performance won't even be close.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Support VIA C7 @ 1.5 GHz D (TDP 25 W). VIA C7 @ 1.5 GHz (TDP 12 W). VIA C7 @ 1.3 GHz (TDP
So the C7 can be a 5W part too. Which is not too bad for a 1GHz CPU.
I guess the ISAIAH will have such a version too. Sounds interesting, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sorry, brother. (Score:5, Informative)
Intel is "shooting for" a 5w processor (no clarification if this is max load, or idle) in 2010.
VIA's Pico-ITX is already available at 1ghz, and the previous generation C7's are available up to 2ghz.
Intel's Silverthorne processor is also aiming for the Pentium M era performance (900mhz - 2.3ghz).
Yes, the initial Silverthorne release is slated for Q1-Q2 2008, but the performance goals you mentioned aren't slated until 2010. So what I'm saying here, is that you can already buy everything that Intel is "shooting for" 2 years before they plan on reaching those goals. With all likelihood, the 2008 release of the Silverthorne will be a 1ghz proc sucking down 20w at peak. Which will put it right in competitive range of the C7 and new Pico-ITX.
-Rick
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sorry, brother. (Score:5, Informative)
My first clue you were full of crap was this: "Silverthorne will be a 1ghz proc sucking down 20w at peak". I'm not sure if you pay attention, but Intel has Core 2 Solo chips running at 1.06/1.2Ghz that peak at 5.5 watts. Silverthorne is a 45nm chip running on a simplified core-2-esque march, and you're making this ridiculous claim that it will "suck down" 20w at peak.
Seriously, 2006 called, it wants its news back.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And after I RTFA it does have the on-b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Via charges for its i-Dot which is a mini-ATX system 65 quid. Similar system in a mini-ITX format is 120+. Reasons aplenty: demand for ultrasmall systems for use in point of sale and home kit is consistently high and in the mini-ITX arena Via is king. There is no contest. Intel simply does not manage to fit into the TDP requirements of most enclosures. While there are mainboards around, nobody buys them.
Re: (Score:2)
"out of date"? (Score:3, Interesting)
While past architectures have been considerably out-of-date in terms of modern features
They may not be bleeding edge, but their Eden processors used to compare very favorably to Intel's low-power chips, and have unique features like Padlock accelerated encryption (which is supported at least partially by the Linux kernel to accelerate cryptographic stuff.) Padlock made it possible to have a very low power VPN server..
The only real problem I've had with the VIA processors has been availability, pricing, and cheesy 3rd party motherboards. Mini itx dot com for example wants to bend you over backwards for some pretty old systems; the latest stuff you practically need to take out a mortgage from. You can't really buy the boards from but a handful of places. VIA also seems to be ignoring the networking market (if they sold a low-power board with 3 gigabit ports, they'd put Soekris out of its misery once and for all- overnight.)
Same thing with AMD's low-power Geode (which is plug-compatible with certain athlons.) You can't buy them anywhere except bundled with really shitty motherboards.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Also the gOS boards are quite nice, though at micro-ATX are harder to fit in to a low power solution... I have two of these, one running my router with a dual Netflex-3 card (yeah I know, older 10/100, but I don't need any faster) and it ru
Re: (Score:2)
One of the things I appreciate about my daughter's gPC is that the power management stuff mostly works. That's a lot better than the typical experience I've had with Linux power management, where basically nothing works.
Memories (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/511/isaiah_arch.jpg [pcper.com]
I've got a C7 running a home email server. (Score:4, Insightful)
If they make a higher performance chip that get within the range of a Core 2, I'd consider buying one to replace my higher performance server in a few years. I hate paying for more electricity, and then paying to get rid of the waste heat. I'd even consider it for a workstation PC if the performance is good enough. Quiet fans are desirable to me, super-duper performance matters fairly little.
Re: (Score:2)
Detected 664.539 MHz processor.
Memory: 195328k
Though my EPIA is a 500Mhz fella and no fan too, I boot it from CF too so it's presence is hardly felt (until you switch the monitor on!).
Re: (Score:2)
I have an Efika: 128MB of RAM, 400MHz e300 processor, 100Mb Ethernet, 2x USB 1.1, IRDA, RS-232, 3.3v PCI slot, and 44-pin IDE; 1080mW draw for the whole board.
$100.
-:sigma.SB
Re:I've got a C7 running a home email server. (Score:5, Informative)
For a while I was on a mission to build a really power efficient PC. Unfortunately when I got my AC power meter, I learned a number of disappointing things:
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Mobo: ASUS M2A-VM HDMI
CPU: AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+ AM2
Case: Antec NSK1380
It's about the same form factor as the Shuttle, it's low power with a certified 80Plus PSU, and it has the advantages of being upgradeable: you can replace the motherboard if you need to, and it takes a standard AM2 CPU, which is a lot easier to lay your hands on. Only one caveat: you don't have a lot of space to work with, so if you want to replace
Competition is good (Score:4, Interesting)
What could we get out of this? Loads, of course. One thing I'm not worried about is speed of the chips. Yes, faster CPUs are generally a good thing but I'd like to see more efficient chips coming out in all areas from the chip makers. I'd like to see less heat, less power usage under load, less standby power usage, reduced need for fans/cooling, and more along the lines of efficiency. More efficient chips, especially power usage, equates to less money I spend on utility bills or batteries or whatever. More money in my pockets, more efficient chips, more competition among the chip makers - big and small - all equals "the goodness".
My $.02 for the day...
all on a 94M-transistor (Score:3, Funny)
-mcgrew
No spam for YOU!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
VIA processors and motherboards (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.logicsupply.com/ [logicsupply.com]
At work, we used the mini-itx with fanless case for branch office VPN solutions using linux + openswan (which in turn connected back to checkpoint clusters as well as other branch office openswan gateways). At home, I have a VIA chipset m/b with an Athlon 3000+ processer which has been running great for me for a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Overengineered against the Silverthorn (Score:4, Interesting)
C7 already has a good track-record for small form factor, low power, and providing acceptable performance at that category. IMO with the OoO they're heading more towards the laptop market, and I think they could've done something at least less conventional with the design.
Imagine that they modified the C7-M in-order execution core to a 4-way, fine grain interleaved multithreading, and have 2 cores. The existing C7-M has a short pipe, so pipeflushes aren't as penalizing. At the clockspeed that they're starting at (2GHz), each thread would have acceptable performance for your typical workload. And as OSes are becoming more thread happy (OSX is definitely one of them), such design would be at least something different than ordinary. It would be like having a cut down Sun Niagara in your laptop.
The current design would make it work decently well for low end laptop and desktops, but I can't help but think that the core now has a bunch of stuff that they can't exactly turn off - I haven't heard of a CPU that could switch off its OoO and retire queue, and the die size has increased significantly compared to the C7.
Open Video Drivers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What nVidia? All of the Mini-ITX motherboards with VIA processors that I know of, have VIA chipset and graphics as well. Including boards made by other companies like Jetway. Anyway, there are no complete open drivers for these chips either (which is unfortunate -- see my other post on C7 performance).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Open Video Drivers - ya, they suck (Score:4, Interesting)
- The OpenChrome drivers, open source, some hw-accel support
- Unichrome drivers, open source but taking a purist approach that lacks features
- Via's own drivers, limited binaries for only certain distros, nightmare compile process, but most features supported
Unfortunately for me, I bought a VIA-epia ex1000 mini-ITX. It has some nice TV out connectors (component out!), so needs a driver that knows how to get this going. Having wasted a lot of time trying to build the drivers for FC7, I gave up and ended up using the Via binaries with FC5. The problem then is that other bits of hardware aren't detected under FC5, leaving me to patch PCI tables and rebuild the kernel to get the right southbridge driver (made a big difference to system performance - much smoother) and the SMBUS working.
Looking at forums I'm definitely not alone. This guy ended up with XP: http://cg-note.blogspot.com/2007/09/via-epia-ex1000-installation-adventure.html [blogspot.com]
Personally I think the problem is with Via. They claim to support open source, but throwing out the odd binary driver and giving mangled sources with not too easy to follow build instructions isn't much more than lip service. If they were serious, they could setup a yum repository for Fedora and make rpm's and debs for each major release of the distros they choose to support. Putting all the download packages on one page of their site would also help, as would openly releasing all their datasheets.
I hope they learn to do better, because I feel their products are held back by the poor Linux support
Mike
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
More like Core 2 (Score:3, Insightful)
The Summary kind of has it backwards, Via's new chip competes more closely with Core 2, while Intel's Silverthorn competes more closely with Via's C7 chips.
Even the C7 has "even SSE3"... (Score:3, Informative)
but as the article said, this time it's more powerful. The C7 is not particularly strong because of its in-order execution core, and the new CPU appears to fix this.
For the record, my 2 GHz C7 machine can play a 720p h.264 video smoothly, but only without sound :) This is using MPlayer, no hardware acceleration except Xvideo.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)