tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-446911379547795561.post934665597079193327..comments2010-03-07T10:14:50.710-08:00djsmnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-446911379547795561.post-29551364068150590512009-11-20T14:10:44.779-08:002009-11-20T14:10:44.779-08:00nice review. I am about to buy an Atom PC to run Apache and ftp server. This is a nice benchmark for people who want to know roughly what to expect.haloumishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15349704536098405425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-446911379547795561.post-65778177385713828752009-07-14T14:15:22.523-07:002009-07-14T14:15:22.523-07:00I know what you mean, that&#39;s why I created the the second chart: here I compare apples with apples. <br />SPECint and SPECfp scale very vell with the CPU clock, for this reason I normalized the SPEC score to the actual CPU clock. The result is that, as expected, Intel Atom and Via Nano got comparable core efficiency, far away from traditional netbook processors.<br />This is actually my message: don&#39;t expect a performance boost with the VIA Nano!! Both processors are really the bottom performance of modern CPUs.djsmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15669624783027180797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-446911379547795561.post-79801643972422018342009-07-11T09:07:22.427-07:002009-07-11T09:07:22.427-07:00It is just plain stupid to compare a Nano and Atom chip to a Pentium M or C2duo at almost double the clockfrequency.<br />It would have been better to compare them to a C2D downclocked at 800Mhz, or a pentiumM clocked at 1Ghz.<br /><br />Seriously, this benchmark shows nothing of the actual tests done with them. Perhaps the results will differ if the task performed is video encoding, or opening many HTML pages in Iexplore.<br />The graph tells the user very little.ProDigithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17537111536049400038noreply@blogger.com