ION: TNG Lives Long and Prospers

And that pretty much wraps up all we know about Next Generation ION. It will do everything that current ION platforms can do, only better. It will support Pine Trail, it will be 50-100% faster, and on netbooks Optimus will dynamically switch the GPU on/off as needed. Given the alternative between spending around $25 on a Broadcom HD chip compared to $50 to add an NVIDIA ION chip, NVIDIA obviously hopes netbook manufacturers will see enough added value to skip the Broadcom HD and go for NG-ION. If you're not happy with Pine Trail, we have to agree with NVIDIA on this one. Flash 10.1 support has been much better on NVIDIA GPUs than on the competition (though the 10.1 Beta 3 adds Crystal HD support), there are a few potentially useful CUDA apps, and light gaming support is an added bonus.

Casual games like Spore, Monkey Island, and World of WarCraft should all run reasonably well […and a little birdie told us StarCraft 2 runs acceptably as well!], but any game that stresses the CPU is going to cause problems. That's no surprise, since Pineview is virtually the same performance as Diamondville; it just uses less power. Hard drive performance has also been a sore spot on Atom, from a combination of the low-end CPU and RAM specs and the use of bottom-of-the-barrel hard drives. We'll have to wait for test hardware to see if things have improved much in respect to storage performance.

NVIDIA continues to promote CUDA applications like Badaboom and vReveal, along with multimedia support headlined by Flash 10.1. If you happen to be a YouTube junky, full screen Flash videos will no longer be a problem on an ION netbook. Besides Flash videos, NVIDIA has worked quite a bit with Boxee to provide a nice multimedia library setup that will run great on ION. NVIDIA also hinted that "something big" was in the works that would make it "foolish to not have a GPU" in your next netbook/laptop, but as usual they couldn't give us specifics right now. Marketing bluster or a real killer app? Hopefully we'll know by the end of the year.

We expect NG-ION netbooks and nettops to start showing up later this month, with prices similar to what we saw with the previous ION solutions. NVIDIA says we'll see 30 or more NG-ION designs by summer 2010. Two of the first netbooks with NG-ION scheduled for release are the Acer Aspire One 532G and the ASUS 1201PN. The 532G is also the first 10.1" ION, with a 1366x768 LCD to make HD videos (and general Windows use) more palatable. We really hope all ION-based netbooks follow suit and use a 1366x768 LCD as a minimum. The 1201PN is the next iteration of the 1201N, so we expect it to use an Atom D510 with ION—and hopefully eke out a bit more battery life, though the D510 will make that difficult as it lacks SpeedStep support. On the nettop side, we should see the Acer Aspire Revo, ASUS EeeBox, and Zotac ZBOX in the near future. There are also all-in-one designs coming with the ASUS EeeTop 2010PNT, Compaq CQ1, and Lenovo C200.

When looking at pricing, something else to keep in mind is Windows 7 Starter vs. Home Premium. We don't particularly care for Starter; it's not horrible, but the Aero UI and other personalization options (i.e. wallpaper) are definitely missed. ION netbooks should include Home Premium instead of Starter, so there's definitely added value in ION beyond the GPU. If you're looking at a $300 Pine Trail netbook with Win7 Starter versus a $400 NG-ION with Win7 Home Premium, we'd recommend the latter—especially if it comes with 2GB RAM instead of the meager 1GB found on most sub-$350 netbooks.

After the Optimus announcement, we could have pretty much guessed what Next Generation ION would entail, but that doesn't make the hardware any less impressive. ION has always been a far superior multimedia solution than regular Atom-based netbooks/nettops, and the new version keeps all of the good features, boosts performance, and adds seamless switching between IGP and GPU as needed. That means better battery life when running common applications, and improved features and performance when you need it. Atom-based systems are still going to feel slow for a lot of tasks, and while CULV laptops are competitive they're also a sizable jump in cost; until we can get CULV with Optimus graphics for under $500 there's a clear market for Next Generation ION.

Getting Technical with Next Generation ION
Comments Locked

34 Comments

View All Comments

  • yyrkoon - Wednesday, March 3, 2010 - link

    One of the things that gets me, is that they will not / can not port this technology to the desktop. Would it not be great to have switchable switchable graphics on a low powered IGP platform, and then get a boost when you need / want it ? But nvidia still drives up the power required to use parts on the desktop.

    But, let me backup a minute. Would it not be nice to have a mobile part in a desktop for max efficiency ? Let say, something like the equivalent of the 250M, with very low power usage, but very good performance for the power usage statistics ? I am thinking ~35-40W max under load.

    Even the 7600GT for its time, could not beat these power usage numbers, and for a single monitor at around 1440x900, it did not do terrible performance wise. That, and the 7600GT was one of the most power thrifty discrete cards offered for the desktop, that gave decent performance at or around this resolution. AM I wrong in thinking the 250M GPU could trump the 7600GT in both of these areas ? If I am, then I am sure there is something that *can*.

    Also, look, I am pro Microsoft. I really like Windows 7, especially the 64-bit variant of Ultimate. It runs really nicely on "cheap" laptop with only a T3400 CPU, but with 4GB of memory. Anyways, what is up with nvidia and their "nothing but Windows" stance on this. While again, is there something wrong with the other hardware available to make better use of this current technology ? ARM comes to mind. As well as even a different CPU produced by Intel, or even AMD.

    Maybe the above is moot, because there is already something to fill those gaps, or they do not want to compete with themselves because of the new emerging hardware ( based on ARM was it ? ) they seem to have announced recently. I really do not know the whole story, but it does seem rather short sighted to me that they would limit this hardware to a single software platform. No matter which is is. Give your customer the freedom while using your hardware, and perhaps they will respond in kind by buying your hardware to begin with( and all that ).
  • Penti - Tuesday, March 2, 2010 - link

    Twice as fast? What are you on?

    http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9600M-...">http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9600M-...

    http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-...">http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-...

    It's game-able with 9600M it's not really game-able with Integrated 9400M.
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, March 2, 2010 - link

    Okay, so it's "over twice as fast". It's still not a performance part. 3DMark isn't usually the best source of data for true performance. Looking to actual games, 9600M typically scores around 2 to 3 times as high as 9400M. The 9400M achieves playable frame rates at minimum details and 800x600 in nearly all games, but only about half are playable at 1366x768. Something like a 9600M is playable in all titles at 1366x768. It's still pretty anemic compared to a $100 desktop card, or a 9800M part.
  • Penti - Wednesday, March 3, 2010 - link

    I was looking at the games (which is included in most reviews/benchmarks at that site).

    9400M does fairly well on a high-speed cpu though I'll give you that. But it's still a pain to run most games.

    Dedicated memory helps, I wonder if the NG-ION will be helped by it. Looks like it will be pretty low bandwidth. 9600M is old of course. But not much else has been available. Of course I'd rather see say a Mobility HD5650. But that's still only comparable in performance to a 9800M GS. They fit the power envelope though. But that won't happen till they move to Core i lappys for Apples part. But of course even the difference of 9400M and 9600M can be felt as enormous. You don't really need to be able to play at higher resolutions then the lappy screen either way. I do agree that it's pretty anemic any way though, especially for the 17" MacBook Pro, but then again it's not a gaming computer. It's not the same as desktop where you need to game at around 1920x1200 and has screens upto 2560x1440. Being able to play at all is pretty good on a laptop.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now