Via C7-M: how does the energy efficiency compare to Intel?

Via_c7m_logo With the recent Samsung Q1U & Intel A1xx CPU announcements it’s easy to overlook the current Via-based UMPCs, but I think there’s a little overdue credit that should be extended to Via. It’s clear that Intel’s new mobile chips are aimed squarely at the Via C7-M; by providing an energy efficient CPU, Via has helped pull Intel into the market which provides consumers more choice. Would Intel have done so anyway? I think they would have, but we might have waited longer.

That point of view is certainly debatable, so while you think about it, I wanted to share some thoughts on the Samsung Q1B as I’ve had one available to me on loan for the past several weeks. At this point, I’ve now owned or borrowed each of the Samsung Q1 models and while I tend to demand more ‘oomph’ from my devices, the Via processor certainly brings energy efficiency into the equation.

The Q1B I borrowed was a stock unit with the 1.0 GHz Via C7-M CPU, 512 MB of RAM, Windows XP Tablet Edition and 40 GB hard drive. Let’s hop right to the battery life because the biggest draw to the Via-based Q1B is the potential for more computing time. As I’ve done previously with my Samsung Q1 and Q1P UMPCs, I ran the Battery Eater application. This application stresses out the device battery to provide an estimate of the minimum run-time, i.e.: it simulates how long the battery would last if you ran your device ‘full-out’ until the battery was used up. Here’s the graph results of the Samsung Q1B with the Via C7-M:

Discharge

Based on this test with a fully charged battery the C7-M-based UMPC should minimally last around 3 hours; with proper power management settings, this jives with the reported 4 hours or so that Q1B owners are getting on the standard 3-cell battery. How does that compare to the current Intel offerings?

Not long ago, I ran the same BatteryEater test on my Intel-based Samsung UMPCs and here were the findings:

  • Samsung Q1 with 900 MHz Intel Celeron processor: 105 minutes
  • Samsung Q1P with 1 GHz Intel Pentium M processor: 158 minutes

I’ve also used Notebook Hardware Control with both of my Intel-based Samsung UMPCs in the past; NHC is a great tool to monitor the battery drain in real-time for XP and now for Vista too. Here’s what I saw:

  • My Samsung Q1 (Intel Celeron) typically drew between 8.7 to 10.8 watts
  • My Samsung Q1P (Intel Pentium M) typically draws between 7.5 to 8.5 watts
  • The Samsung Q1B (Via C7-M) draws between 5 to 6.8 watts

I have to point out that the following test comparisons aren’t exactly equal because the Intel machines had 1 GB of RAM and I didn’t use the same physical battery across all three machines because I no longer have my Samsung Q1. Still, we can draw some decent conclusions here.

Starting with the Q1 and the Q1B, the Via C7-M unit is providing a far greater amount of battery life. In my testing above, the Q1B offers around 70% more run-time and does so at a slightly lower price. Granted, there are functional differences between the two devices, i.e.: two speakers and better audio quality on the Q1, as well as smoother video playback, the Q1B can screen rotate in different resolutions, etc….. but strictly from a portable power perspective, there’s a huge difference.

The Intel Pentium M processor unit fared better than the Celeron based, but still didn’t meet or exceed the Via-based runtime. My testing showed that the Q1B will last a good 10% longer than the Q1P, but again, there’s a sacrifice or compromise. The price difference between the two models is near 50% with the Q1B priced just under $800, while the Q1P will set you back around $1150. Again, it’s a trade-off and not just in price: the Q1P will generally perform better than the Q1B, plus it has some different features, just like the original Q1.

Overall, my point here isn’t to say that one of the three Samsung Q1 models is ‘best’, or that you should buy a particular one. Everyone’s computing needs are different and quite frankly, there are plenty of other UMPCs that should be considered for each individual. The point was for me to personally take a good look at the power savings offered by the Via C7-M since I’ve owned both of the comparable Intel-based Samsung Q1s. In the end, it’s up to you to judge your needs and consider all of the features and functions that are most important to you. Again, I think we should all realize that while Intel would have likely had more power efficient mobile processors in the pipeline, Via undoubtedly showed them that you can have a decent performing platform that can be an energy miser as well.

While I focused solely on the battery life afforded by a Via chipset here, I don’t want to overlook performance. I’m sending the unit back now, but before I boxed it up, I did run the CrystalMark2004R2 benchmark application on the Q1B so that once we have a Q1U in the house, we can make some comparisons.

The overall CrystalMark score was 13527 and I’ve saved the results file here so we can refer to it in the future.

loading

Comments have been disabled for this post