We completely agree, and have to consider the system as a whole both for Atom and Nano. The Overall score in PCMark05 for Atom is 1683, compared to the Nano's 1538. That’s a small win for Intel because the graphics and memory scores on the Nano platform are truly dire. We have to hope that VIA will update its CN896 North Bridge and Chrome9 HC IGP graphics as they are letting Nano down.
PCMark05 Results
Longer bars are better
3DMark06 Results
Note, no ShaderModel 3.0 scores
Longer bars are better
COMMENTS
PCMark05 favours GenuineIntel CPUID
Does no-one at El Reg read Slashdot or Ars Technica? Ars demonstrated that just changing the CPUID of the Nano to "GenuineIntel" improves the memory subsystem benchmark by 47.4%, pushing it significantly above the Atom for memory. I'm not making this up, check the Ars Technica "Low-end grudge match: Nano vs. Atom" by Joel Hruska (29 July 2008). Worth a mention, if only for the PCMark/Intel conspiracy...
80 watts?
What a pile of rubbish. Where does this (p)review show that Nano is twice as fast as Atom? What are the specs of the test system - memory, hard drive(s), power supply? What did you do to it to push it to 80W? I can do 80W with a 45W dual-core AMD (under $100 including mATX mobo, miniITX might be more expensive), 1GB DDR2 and a "green" Caviar, so either the Nano, or the review is full of crap.
Given: n=3a
Prove: n=3a
"As VIA SN hardware sells for £150 ... that suggests Nano might be three times the price of Atom. Ouch.
If so, it'll be roughly three times the price of a comparable Atom."
