Via's C3 hits 1 ghz, Review at THG

[Adul]

would be nice for maybe a cool running hometheatre system.

Review

At first glance, the C3 processor seems to be nothing but a low-end competitor to Intel and AMD CPUs; how could a 1 GHz processor compete with a fast Pentium 4 at roughly half the clock speed? Well, take the Pentium 4, it doesn't do everything right. There are two factors that put a damper on the Pentium 4. It is expensive and it gets very hot. A Pentium 4 at 2 GHz, for example, has a thermal output of 75 Watts! By the way, an Athlon XP 2000+ (at 1666 MHz) typically isn't any better at 70 Watts. C3 runs smoothly at a fraction of that power.

 

[grant2]

The celerons really outperform this chip, tom should have dug up an even OLDER pentium processor so we can better see what this chip CAN beat.

 

[Czar]

very impressive

think of the wonder box, a multimedia box for dvd, mp3 and other playbacks, runing in a very little case with this cpu producing hardly any heat and hardly any noise, a video card like the g450 which doesnt reqire a fan, a small low noise hd. Networked to a fileserver serving all the files you need.

someday someday

 

[Eug]

This CPU would be good for some laptop applications as well. It uses way less power than Intel's mobile CPUs.

I can see this thing used in an ultraportable business laptop and I wonder how it compares to the Transmeta Crusoe.

 

[Pabster]

The only VIA product I have any interest in.

C3 has proven to be a respectable performer, given its ultra-low power consumption and thermal demands. It runs nicely where anything else won't.

 

[ElFenix]

kinda weepy, makes me think it was written by a via rep

 

[joohang]

I'm interested in a dual C3. If it multitasks pretty well, I don't care too much about raw performance readings.

 

[joohang]

Think about huge server racks consisting of dozens of C3 systems, cooled only by a handful of fans. Administrators do not have to fear performance drops or dead processors with the death of a single processor fan. VIA's C3 will continue its work unimpressively, as it does not require much power anyway.

The most interesting fact about VIA's Gigahertz-C3 is its attractive price, which should quickly fall to approximately $70. It's certainly not much to ask for a processor that won't rock the boat, but it certainly has more trend-setting aspects than the enduring performance battle between AMD and Intel.

I'd build a personal server with C3, but not in a production environment. $70 or even at $20, it just doesn't make sense to build a production server with it.

BTW, check page 22 of this doc. SMP is not supported. But then didn't Intel say the same about Mendocino Celerons? I hope they come up with a SMP-capable C3 though. I'd so buy that.

 

[majewski9]

I have definately considered getting this chip! For a noiseless/multimedia only system of course!

 

[Viper GTS]

12W!

That is very, very impressive.

I want to build a system with it just for the hell of it.



Viper GTS

 

[joohang]

Is 12W lower than a typical Crusoe chip?

 

[joohang]

Found my answer:

Linkie

8. What is the power consumption of a Crusoe processor?
The Crusoe processor typically operates between several hundred milliwatts and 1-2 watts. The Crusoe processor is efficient even while running heavy-duty multimedia applications like DVD movie playback.

The extremely low power consumption delivered on multimedia applications can be directly attributed to a new feature called LongRun power management. LongRun has the distinct ability to analyze the application workload dynamically and to adjust continuously the processor?s speed (MHz) and voltage to provide the necessary performance. This new feature promises to extend the battery life of all applications, most specifically those requiring the constant attention of the processor. This is a dramatic departure from today?s ultra-light PCs, which are incapable of delivering over one and a half or two hours of runtime for DVD movies.

So does that mean 1-2 watts at peak!? :Q

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: joohang
Found my answer:

Linkie

8. What is the power consumption of a Crusoe processor?
The Crusoe processor typically operates between several hundred milliwatts and 1-2 watts. The Crusoe processor is efficient even while running heavy-duty multimedia applications like DVD movie playback.

The extremely low power consumption delivered on multimedia applications can be directly attributed to a new feature called LongRun power management. LongRun has the distinct ability to analyze the application workload dynamically and to adjust continuously the processor?s speed (MHz) and voltage to provide the necessary performance. This new feature promises to extend the battery life of all applications, most specifically those requiring the constant attention of the processor. This is a dramatic departure from today?s ultra-light PCs, which are incapable of delivering over one and a half or two hours of runtime for DVD movies.

So does that mean 1-2 watts at peak!? :Q

This LongRun does seem interesting, but it's not as if a standard CPU is producing max wattage at idle.

Anyways, my G3 12" iBook gives me over 2 hrs of DVD time (barely). The 14" iBook should last longer though, since they use a bigger battery (which more than compensates for the larger screen).

 

[RanDum72]

If a K6-2 can ramp up to 1gig speeds, it could easily outperform the C3.

 

[SteelCityFan]

"A Pentium 4 at 2 GHz, for example, has a thermal output of 75 Watts! By the way, an Athlon XP 2000+ (at 1666 MHz) typically isn't any better at 70 Watts. "

Got to love AMD FanBoy Tom. Of course, here he is referring to the old Williamette Core at it's maximum speed, and using a 2000+ XP chip at below it's current speed. He is comparing heat of an old P4 core to the current AMD Core.

Why would he do this? It's absurd. He does somewhat correct it in a chart on the next page showing a 2.533Ghz Northwood only consuming 59W, but he still harps on the 70W right below it.

 

[Pacinamac23]

^^ Tom did not write that :disgust:

 

[Oreo]

The one and only area this chip has an advantage is in powerconsumption, and hardly at that either. Look at the "Intel Pentium III 0.13 µm Tualatin 1.45 V 1400 MHz 31 W", it runs at 1400MHz and only dissaptes 31W so if you underclocked it to 700MHz it would only take about 15W, right? And a Tualatin@700MHz would stomp the C3 into the ground so I don't see what's so nice about the C3. My theory is that it performs so incredibly poorly in nearly every benchmark that it makes people interested. People go "hmm, that CPU has some pretty sh!tty benchmarks, but it has to be good at something, right?" but it isn't. I guess "All publicity is good publicity" as they say.

 

[BD231]

Originally posted by: Oreo
The one and only area this chip has an advantage is in powerconsumption, and hardly at that either. Look at the "Intel Pentium III 0.13 µm Tualatin 1.45 V 1400 MHz 31 W", it runs at 1400MHz and only dissaptes 31W so if you underclocked it to 700MHz it would only take about 15W, right? And a Tualatin@700MHz would stomp the C3 into the ground so I don't see what's so nice about the C3. My theory is that it performs so incredibly poorly in nearly every benchmark that it makes people interested. People go "hmm, that CPU has some pretty sh!tty benchmarks, but it has to be good at something, right?" but it isn't. I guess "All publicity is good publicity" as they say.

Translation, C3 is sh*t.

 

[lambasa]

This CPU has its place in (el cheapo) small form factor PC's, and that's about it. I would personally use a Tualatin, but I can see how a cheap PC could use a $30 CPU.

 

[littlegohan]

link

Check this out!!

Look at the last benchmark on the bottom, the divx encoding benchmark

is hillarious

 

[lambasa]

More info on Tualatin (mobile) power requirements from the Mobile P3 datasheet:

700 MHz & 1.10V --> 7.0W
750 MHz & 1.10V --> 7.0W
667 MHz & 1.15V --> 8.9W
733 MHz & 1.15V --> 9.3W
750 MHz & 1.15V --> 9.4W
800 MHz & 1.15V --> 9.8W
850 MHz & 1.15V --> 10.0W
866 MHz & 1.15V --> 10.1W

I think a 866MHz Tualatin (512K) would severely outperform a C3 at 1GHz. This isn't an exactly fair comparison as these are mobile CPUs, but I wanted to show the possible power used at lower speeds. At these low speeds, it is possible to use a lower voltage as seen in the chart. The desktop 1.4GHz P3 (512k) CPU TDP is 31.2W. This is still pretty easily cooled by a modest heat sink and low speed fan.

I would say the only thing this C3 has going for it is being priced the same as a chipset.

 

[Priit]

Got to love AMD FanBoy Tom. Of course, here he is referring to the old Williamette Core at it's maximum speed, and using a 2000+ XP chip at below it's current speed. He is comparing heat of an old P4 core to the current AMD Core.

Why would he do this? It's absurd. He does somewhat correct it in a chart on the next page showing a 2.533Ghz Northwood only consuming 59W, but he still harps on the 70W right below it.

IMO Tom's numbers weren't accurate, but on another way: he was comparing Intel processors average power consumption with AMD/VIA processors maximum power. Williamette @2Ghz has maximum power dissipation of 92W, for example. More figures can be read from Ace's review.

 

[Nemesis77]

I think the C3 is cool (no pun intended)! Sure, it might not be a performance-monster, but does it need to be? If you want performance, you buy P4 or Athlon! What I'm interested in is building a home entertainment system, that is completely silent. no CPU-fans, no case-fans, no power-fans (or silent power-fan). You can't do that with Pentium or Athlon! Also, I would be interested in building thin-clients with C3. One "problem" is that C3 is too powerful! I mean, most of it's power would be wasted since thin-client runs all the apps from the server.

 

[bluemax]

I'm with you Nemesys77!
One thing I've thought about doing was selling (for a small premium) **silent** computers. The quietest workstations you'd ever find. Just imagine an entire office without the steady hum of computer fans...

Of course, if the C3 doesn't handle OFFICE apps very well, Celerons with big heatsinks may have to be looked into....

 

[chansen]

That's what I would be interested to hear - how well does the C3 handle office apps?

Which would be the most representative benchmark for that?