VIA's 90nm CPU to be branded C7
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 16 September 2004 - 16:31 · 8 comments & 326 views
- Advertisement
-
-
(5 replies)
#1 Posted by rIaHc3 on 16 Sep 2004 - 16:56
- ....is this suppose to mean something to AMD and Intel?
-
#1.3 Posted by SVT on 16 Sep 2004 - 17:35
- Yes, this does mean something to Intel, as this processor will compete directly with the likes of Intel's PXA255 processor.
SVT -
#1.4 Posted by rbet on 16 Sep 2004 - 20:04
- different market? you mean this is not for desktop and mobile PCs?
-
#1.5 Posted by SVT on 16 Sep 2004 - 22:43
QUOTE Security applications that leverage the capabilities of the VIA PadLock Hardware Security Suite can be deployed quickly and easily across a broad range of devices including thin clients, set top boxes, home digital entertainment centers, point of sale terminals, and intelligent network routers in a wide variety of wired and wireless networking environments. Potential usage scenarios include Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), Corporate Peer to Peer Networks with restricted access for sensitive projects, and Home Wireless Networks.
Less than 2% of CPUs are used in PCs.
-
#2 Posted by Rudy on 17 Sep 2004 - 00:38
- they are also sometimes used in fanless pcs
-
#3 Posted by kronik on 17 Sep 2004 - 03:52
- very handy CPUs if you ask me, good for Hi-Fi equipment and/or home server.
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
The mobile and desktop versions will offer the same feature set, VIA said, without elaborating, though the former will also sport the fourth generation of VIA's PowerSaver energy conservation technology. Both chips will add RSA encryption (with Montgomery Multiplier support) and Secure Hashing (SHA-1 and SHA-256) acceleration to the hardwired security-oriented functionality the current C3 chips already provide. VIA has already said that the C7 will be fabbed by IBM using a 90nm silicon-on-insulator, low-k dielectric process and 300mm wafers. The C7 is expected to consume 35W at 1GHz, but be capable of being clocked to 2GHz and beyond.
Thanks to xxpor for the heads-up on this bit