Updated: AOpen MiniPC – Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery
by Jarred Walton on March 3, 2006 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Systems
System Setup
In order to show how the MiniPC performs, comparison results are provided using a few other systems, all running integrated graphics; the one exception is that we did throw in a Sempron system with a 6600 graphics card, just to show what even a moderate GPU adds to the picture. All units were equipped with 2x512 MB of RAM, except for the MiniPC, which was running a single 512MB DIMM. The benchmarks that we'll run generally don't need 1GB of RAM, but dual channel support and 512MB DIMMs did get us there anyway. (As I've said in my Buyer's Guides, 256MB DIMMs are a dead end, and consequently, I don't have any floating around anymore.) Here are the specific systems used.
Please note that the systems tested are not meant to be apples-to-apples comparisons. This is a quick look at a few of the most common platforms on the market, including some that are very likely to compete with the AOpen MiniPC for market share. If that seems unfair, then you should also take into account that every one of the systems tested will cost roughly the same as or less than the MP915-B that we're reviewing. At a roughly equal price, it then becomes a matter of determining where your priorities lie: size or performance.
It's difficult to find anything other than Pentium M/Celeron M processors in computers as small as the MiniPC right now - you can find some of VIA's processors in such systems, and of course there's the Mac Mini - so remember that the smaller case size is arguably the most important factor in this comparison. If you don't care about small cases, you really won't have good reason to buy the MiniPC.
When it comes to small, though, we really are talking small: the MiniPC is about 1/5 the total volume of the next smallest SFF PC, the AOpen MZ855/915! Going to more typical SFF designs, the MiniPC is less than 1/8 the volume of the Shuttle G5 chassis. Finally, compared to your typical ATX case like the Antec SLK-1650, you could fit 27 MiniPCs in the space of such a case. Not that you'd want to, but at least you should have some grasp of how small the AOpen system is in comparison to more common computers.
In order to show how the MiniPC performs, comparison results are provided using a few other systems, all running integrated graphics; the one exception is that we did throw in a Sempron system with a 6600 graphics card, just to show what even a moderate GPU adds to the picture. All units were equipped with 2x512 MB of RAM, except for the MiniPC, which was running a single 512MB DIMM. The benchmarks that we'll run generally don't need 1GB of RAM, but dual channel support and 512MB DIMMs did get us there anyway. (As I've said in my Buyer's Guides, 256MB DIMMs are a dead end, and consequently, I don't have any floating around anymore.) Here are the specific systems used.
| AOpen MiniPC Configuration | |
| Motherboard: | AOpen i915GM |
| Processor: | Pentium M 740 (1.73 GHz 2MB Dothan) |
| RAM: | 1 x 512MB PC2-4200 (4-4-4-11) |
| Hard Drive: | WD 2.5 inch 60GB PATA |
| Graphics: | Intel GMA900 |
| Chipset/Video Drivers: | Intel Chipset INF 7.2.2.1006; Intel Graphics v14.18 |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| AOpen MZ855-II Configuration | |
| Motherboard: | AOpen i855GME |
| Processor: | Pentium M 755 (2.00 GHz 2MB Dothan) |
| RAM: | 2 x 512MB Corsaire Value PC3200 (2.5-3-3-8) |
| Hard Drive: | Seagate 7200.7 80GB PATA |
| Graphics: | Intel Extreme 2 |
| Chipset/Video Drivers: | Intel i855 6.3.0.1007; Intel Graphics v14.18 |
| Operating System: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| ASUS Athlon 64 Configuration | |
| Motherboard: | ASUS A8N-VM CSM (939) |
| Processor: | AMD Athlon 64 3200+ (2.00 GHz 512K L2 Venice) |
| RAM: | 2 x 512MB OCZ R2 Platinum PC3200 (2-2-2-7-1T) |
| Hard Drive: | Seagate 250GB 7200.8 SATA |
| Graphics: | NVIDIA GeForce 6150 |
| Chipset/Video Drivers: | nForce 430/410 822; ForceWare 81.98 |
| Operating System: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| ASUS Sempron Configuration | |
| Motherboard: | ASUS K8N4-E Deluxe (754) |
| Processor: | AMD Sempron 64 3100+ (1.80 GHz 256K Palermo) |
| RAM: | 2 x 512MB Generic PC3200 (2.5-3-3-10) |
| Hard Drive: | Hitachi 250GB T7K250 SATA3.0Gbps |
| Graphics: | GeForce 6600 PCIe |
| Chipset/Video Drivers: | nForce 4 AMD 6.70; ForceWare 81.98 |
| Operating System: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| Biostar 350G Pentium D Configuration | |
| Motherboard: | Biostar 350G Proprietary |
| Processor: | Intel Pentium D 920 (2 X 2.80 GHz 2MB Presler) |
| RAM: | 2 x 512MB OCZ PC2-6400@DDR533 (3-3-3-8) |
| Hard Drive: | Western Digital 250GB WD2500KS SATA3.0Gbps |
| Graphics: | Intel GMA-950 |
| Chipset/Video Drivers: | Intel Chipset INF 7.2.2.1006; Intel Graphics v14.18 |
| Operating System: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| Biostar 350G Pentium 4 Configuration | |
| Motherboard: | Biostar 350G Proprietary |
| Processor: | Intel Pentium 4 506 (2.67 GHz 1MB Prescott) |
| RAM: | 2 x 512MB OCZ PC2-6400@DDR533 (3-3-3-8) |
| Hard Drive: | Western Digital 250GB WD2500KS SATA3.0Gbps |
| Graphics: | Intel GMA-950 |
| Chipset/Video Drivers: | Intel Chipset INF 7.2.2.1006; Intel Graphics v14.18 |
| Operating System: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| HP DX5150 Configuration | |
| Motherboard: | HP DX5150 (ATI Xpress 200 chipset) |
| Processor: | AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (ClawHammer) |
| RAM: | 2 x 512MB Samsung PC3200 (3-3-3-8-1T) |
| Hard Drive: | Samsung 160GB SP1614C SATA |
| Graphics: | Xpress 200 IGP |
| Chipset/Video Drivers: | Intel i915 7.2.2.1006; ATI Catalyst 6.2 IGP CCC |
| Operating System: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| Shuttle XPC SD31P Configuration | |
| Motherboard: | Shuttle SD31 Proprietary |
| Processor: | Intel Pentium D 820 (Smithfield) |
| RAM: | 2 x 512MB Crucial Ballistix PC2-5300@DDR533 (4-4-4-8) |
| Hard Drive: | WD 74GB Raptor SATA |
| Graphics: | Intel GMA-950 |
| Chipset/Video Drivers: | Intel Chipset INF 7.2.2.1006; Intel Graphics v14.18 |
| Operating System: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
Please note that the systems tested are not meant to be apples-to-apples comparisons. This is a quick look at a few of the most common platforms on the market, including some that are very likely to compete with the AOpen MiniPC for market share. If that seems unfair, then you should also take into account that every one of the systems tested will cost roughly the same as or less than the MP915-B that we're reviewing. At a roughly equal price, it then becomes a matter of determining where your priorities lie: size or performance.
It's difficult to find anything other than Pentium M/Celeron M processors in computers as small as the MiniPC right now - you can find some of VIA's processors in such systems, and of course there's the Mac Mini - so remember that the smaller case size is arguably the most important factor in this comparison. If you don't care about small cases, you really won't have good reason to buy the MiniPC.
When it comes to small, though, we really are talking small: the MiniPC is about 1/5 the total volume of the next smallest SFF PC, the AOpen MZ855/915! Going to more typical SFF designs, the MiniPC is less than 1/8 the volume of the Shuttle G5 chassis. Finally, compared to your typical ATX case like the Antec SLK-1650, you could fit 27 MiniPCs in the space of such a case. Not that you'd want to, but at least you should have some grasp of how small the AOpen system is in comparison to more common computers.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
54 Comments
View All Comments
plinden - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
Yeah, when are we getting the ability to edit our posts?siliconthoughts - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
When a genuine mac mini costs less, is more upgradeable (dual core, 2 DDR slots, digital audio, WiFi, Bluetooth, 4 USB ports, faster graphics) comes with a nifty secure OS and includes a whole suite of apps, why would anyone buy this? XP just isn't that great that I'd spend a $300 premium for it on an inferior box.Googer - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
These are nice, but It is my suspicion that a Turon in an Mini PC would be the faster choice.NegativeEntropy - Saturday, March 4, 2006 - link
Agreed -- a Turion "version" would be interesting. That said, I think this statement from the review could use a bit of modifying:"...if you really want low power, you can go with one of the Pentium M platforms. End of discussion. "Tech Report recently found that the Turion can compete pretty well with the PM on power consumption http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/pentiumm-vs-t...">http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/pentiumm-vs-t...
JarredWalton - Saturday, March 4, 2006 - link
This isn't meant as a far-reaching statement. What I'm talking about is small form factors, or systems that will compete with the MiniPC. Turion support on socket 754 platforms is lacking, meaning that there are boards that support it but there are definitely boards that won't support it. Most of the socket 754 small form factors are pretty old, so I don't know how many of them would support Turion.The article at Tech Report is interesting, but idle power draw is only half of the question. 94 W at full load really isn't that much better than the rest of the Athlon 64 line. I mean, the HP DX5150 with an old ClawHammer core running at 2.4 GHz is only about 20 W higher. If you were to use a 90 nm Athlon 64, that would cut off 10 W or so right there.
Basically, the Athlon 64 design is really good, and it doesn't require all that much power. However, it still can't really compete with the Pentium M. when you shift to laptops, the whole system probably doesn't consume more than 45 W, so 20 W more for the processor is a major deal. Using desktop systems to try and determine laptop suitability is definitely not the best way to go about it. Ideally, you would want identical laptops, with the only difference being motherboard, chipset, and memory. But that's a story for another day.
Googer - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
I would love to see this Aopen MINI PC rebench marked with a Pentium M 733 or 753 Ultra Low Voltage Processor that has a Maximum of 5W TDP! I would love to see it compaired against the higher 27W TDP Pentium M 740 in both Power Consumtion and Application benchmarks.I bet that at full load the power usage on full load will drop from 38W (with 740) down to 16w and even lower at IDLE! (10W maybe?) With a processor like that this would be the perfect pc for those guys who like to intergrate computers with their cars. Bye bye VIA C3! (C3 Will have http://www.metku.net/index.html?sect=view&n=1&...">other uses though)
JarredWalton - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
Actually, with the HDD and other components, the system is probably using around 18W for the system and 7 to 20W for the CPU. It might even be 20-22W for the system. Still, 38W at maximum load (i.e. HDD activity along with 100% CPU) is hardly going to tax a car, I don't think. (But I'm not a car A/V guy, so maybe I'm wrong.)michael2k - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
You would think, with AOpen's resources, that the AOpen MiniPC would be cheaper than the more powerful and featureful Mac mini.What is AOpen doing that is making it more expensive? It's got an older chipset, slower CPU, less USB ports, no rewritable optical drive, no bluetooth, and no wireless networking.
It's an odd day when buying a Mac is cheaper AND more powerful.
Questar - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
AOpen isn't isn't a computer manufacturer, they are a board maker. What could they do to bring down the price of a system?jconan - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
It's the economy of scale! Apple definitely has this contract manufacturing capacity considering its hardware/software business as well as its distribution channels. AOpen is just a manufacturing firm and is not in the software business to install an in house OS and plus it doesn't have sufficient sales offices out in the distribution side to push its wares. They have to rely on major OEMs to buy in bulk quantity to leverage prices with them.