bit-tech.net

Nvidia responds to Intel’s anti-Ion propaganda

Nvidia responds to Intel’s anti-Ion propaganda

Nvidia claims that its Ion platform offers 10x the gaming performance of Intel's own Atom platform while taking up 55 percent of the space.

The Nvidia and Intel battle is now in full swing, with PowerPoint slides being sharpened and handbags placed in full public view. Following on from Intel’s anti-Ion propaganda document that we saw yesterday, Nvidia has retaliated with a PowerPoint presentation of its own, which is intended to answer some of Intel’s claims.

Like the Intel document, Nvidia’s presentation also takes a swipe at the ageing technology used by its competitor. One slide compares Intel’s "four-year-old three chip design" with Nvidia’s "modern two chip solution." This two-chip system, says Nvidia, provides 10x the performance while taking up 55 percent less space. The performance claim refers specifically to the Ion’s gaming abilities from its GPU with 16 stream processors.

Nvidia also points out that Ion is fully WHQL-certified by Microsoft for Windows Vista Home Premium, and that an Ion-based PC can perform real-time video transcoding tasks using CUDA, as well as having the ability to output 1080p HD video with 7.1 audio. However, the former has already been dismissed by Intel, which said that "neither gaming nor video transcoding are relevant to netbook and nettop users."

Interestingly, Nvidia claims that Intel’s next-generation Atom (codenamed Pineview) will ‘force’ customers to use Intel integrated graphics with what Nvidia describes as "minor improvements." This would explain why Nvidia is opening up its second-generation Ion platform to support VIA’s Nano CPU.

Nvidia also dismissed Intel’s claims about power consumption and battery life, saying that "peak power is a very poor measurement" that doesn’t represent real-world use of a netbook. To make its point, Nvidia published results from MobileMark 2007, which tests battery life using standard apps and video playback. The results showed that an Intel 945GSE-based system lasted for two hours, 40 minutes, while an Nvidia Ion system lasted for two hours, 31 minutes.

As with Intel’s document, Nvidia took the opportunity to publish a few quotes from the press, including one from DailyTech that says that Ion "Completely obliterates anything Intel can currently offer," and one from PC Perspective, which says that "any company not at least seriously considering adopting an ION platform design has no desire to be on the forefront of PC technology."

Was Nvidia right to respond to Intel’s claims? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

22 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Bauul 25th February 2009, 10:21 Quote
As childish as this all is, competition between big companies is never a bad thing: so roll on the handbags!
Arkanrais 25th February 2009, 10:27 Quote
Intel: "your mama's fat"
Nvidia: "no, your mama's fat"

*pulls up a seat and grabs some popcorn*
this could be fun to watch.
yakyb 25th February 2009, 10:34 Quote
what ever comes of this i still want one!!
iwog 25th February 2009, 10:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkanrais
Intel: "your mama's fat"
Nvidia: "no, your mama's fat"

*pulls up a seat and grabs some popcorn*
this could be fun to watch.

+1
[USRF]Obiwan 25th February 2009, 11:19 Quote
AMD: "We offer 1 chip solution 20x faster then 4 year old Intel and 1 year old Nvidia designs, and we don't need a second manufacturer for the CPU, because we already have them"
Sebbo 25th February 2009, 11:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan
AMD: "We offer 1 chip solution 20x faster then 4 year old Intel and 1 year old Nvidia designs, and we don't need a second manufacturer for the CPU, because we already have them"

lol, so right. this would be a perfect time for AMD to come out with a Fusion-based mobile platform. I imagine Intel and nVidia would probably be stunned into silence too

to borrow from Arkanrais...
Intel: "your mama's fat"
Nvidia: "no, your mama's fat"
AMD: "well, i f**ked both your mamas. at the same time. aaaall niiiiight loooong":D
shadow12 25th February 2009, 11:46 Quote
I would like to see both platforms out there.
It would be great to see two types of netbooks out there one which is more of the same we have: Long battery life, low power and functional. The other a slightly heavier(possibly due to larger battery) slightly higher power, handles HD video for watching some movie on a larger external screen, some games ability. It would also be cool if CUDA could be used to boost performance in processor hungry applications.
nicae 25th February 2009, 12:00 Quote
Gimme the VIAs! :D
friskies 25th February 2009, 12:04 Quote
Nvidia hasn`t come up with a problem free chipset since the Nforce2 days, lots of problems with their new 790 range and integrated graphics for laptops overheating. I`m still on their Nforce4 chipset, i have to disable the built in hardware firewall because it corrupts my connection, I believe Nvidia has stated that the whole thing is "broken" and can`t be fixed, that doesn`t help me, i paid full price for my mobo. My next chipset won`t be Nvidia, even if they score the most points in all the benchmarks in the universe
Xir 25th February 2009, 12:32 Quote
Quote:
neither gaming nor video transcoding are relevant to netbook

Hmmm, well I wouldn't mind it could do both. Using the Netbook as a near silent media device accessing my NAS...great!
amacieli 25th February 2009, 12:37 Quote
"To make its point, Nvidia published results from MobileMark 2007... Intel-based system lasted for 2hrs40mins, Nvidia-based system lasted for 2hrs31mins."
Skuze me, but if nVidia wanted to make its point, surely the battery life would be greater than Intel's, not smaller?? Or am I being stupid today.
UrbanMarine 25th February 2009, 12:47 Quote
It's not the size of the chip, it's the motion in the electronic ocean.
Tim S 25th February 2009, 12:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by amacieli
"To make its point, Nvidia published results from MobileMark 2007... Intel-based system lasted for 2hrs40mins, Nvidia-based system lasted for 2hrs31mins."
Skuze me, but if nVidia wanted to make its point, surely the battery life would be greater than Intel's, not smaller?? Or am I being stupid today.

Intel was saying that Ion's power consumption was twice that of the Diamondville platform... meaning half the battery life. Nvidia is basically saying that the power consumption isn't much higher than the current Diamondville platform, but it has a much better feature set.
Sebbo 25th February 2009, 13:37 Quote
How exactly did nVidia get these results anyway? i know the article says "from MobileMark 2007", but MobileMark appears to perform a set of 4 tests then gives a score (like 3DMark and PCMark), whereas the article (and nVidia's comment) makes it sound more a set of tasks that runs the battery until its dead.
Is there a chance Intel's claim to power consumption is based off, for example, having an IM client, email client that checks for messages every 10 minutes and a script that retrieves a set of webpages over and over (with a delay between each) all over wifi until the battery ran dead? To me, that seems more indicative of "normal power consumption" for a netbook, rather than the MobileMark benchmarking tool nVidia has used in its claims.
I think this bickering between the two companies needs less spin and more independently supplied facts
Tim S 25th February 2009, 13:52 Quote
MobileMark is actually pretty good at replicating real usage - loading, using and closing apps, browsing the internet, etc. Intel merely talked about thermal design power in the document it leaked.
HourBeforeDawn 25th February 2009, 19:58 Quote
okay why is there anytime someone is stating that something is faster then the other it always or typically ends up being 10 times faster? I mean do they just like that number or is there a more educated reason like people associate 10 better or something lol, anyhow this will be interesting although competition is good in this case this is competition that wont really help us anytime soon.
Tim S 25th February 2009, 20:03 Quote
The 3DMark scores (I know, grain of salt required) were 129 and 1,300 respectively.
Denithor 25th February 2009, 21:43 Quote
Tablespoon of salt, more likely, but yeah the ION completely annihilates the 945GC chipset in nearly everything. And does so while using only slightly more power.

nVidia = winner (at least, assuming they can find anyone to make netbooks with their ION boards)
Grimloon 25th February 2009, 22:31 Quote
For an HTPC that on occasion has to do more the Ion platform is looking beautiful. I like the idea of a CPU that will have a power usage refgstered in single digit watts but usually the integrated graphics are pathetic to say the least.

I want a mini ITX system that'll do 1080P video without frying itself and/or stuttering.

The Intel Atom 330 looks to be the chip, the GMA 950 definitely isn't the chipset. Only VGA output? Excuse me? DVI at the least and HDMI is preferable. The only chipset that offers that at the mo on a mini ITX is Fly Creek and that uses a Core 2 Duo to run it. Ion seems to be aimed at the HTPC/netbook market and I wish them the best of luck (mostly because I want one!)

I'm trying to build an HTPC at the moment but I want it to have at least a little bit of "oomph". The X4500HD on the Fly Creek looks to be able to deliver that but I want a low power CPU, not a full Core 2 Duo.

To sum it up - "Yay nVidia! Keep going!"
n3mo 26th February 2009, 01:21 Quote
I'm still waiting for a decent Nano netbook, for now i use Sony Vaio T17GP which is far better than any netbook (although being 10.6 inch) but breaks my #1 rule - "never use Intel". Nano + Ion seems to be the answer.
cebla 26th February 2009, 02:58 Quote
I would suggest the reason no one is doing video playback and stuff on netbooks is because they can't, not because they don't want to. The whole idea that it isn't relevant is a load of rubbish.
Chocobollz 26th February 2009, 05:58 Quote
And now here they do it again..*sigh* They ruin a good product with their bad statements like this.. I think they're just whining. Why don't they learn from their past mistakes, that accusing their rival will only do bad for them. They're telling Intel that nvidia will open a can of whoop-ass and now who would the blame for Intel not giving them license? And don't they also learn their lessons when ATI kicks their ass with the HD 4000 series? Jen Hsun Huang need to change his attitude. I'm not saying nvidia is a bad company, I'm just saying that their CEO is just too much doing badmouth to their rivals.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums