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
davecason - Friday, March 17, 2006 - link
Just an FYI for the reviewer: use tweezers. The plastic inner shell is designed for tweezers with an angled grip point. There are both cut-outs and spaceous slotting to accomodate tweezers on every screw installation.Did anyone pick up one of these and have trouble with the IDE PCB? I have two problems: 1) DMA turns itself off and the drive resorts to PIO mode when I attach it through to the PCB. I have tested the drive elsewhere and on the USB bus and it runs at normal speeds but when it is attached internally it slows down to about 1/10 of the speed. Removing the optical drive from the PCB has no affect on the problem.
2) The system hiccups when I boot it. The optical drive goes into a long series of IDE bus restarts and if I remove it, the IDE drive simply takes forever to boot (probably because of some bus error and the speed is being backed down to almost nothing).
Any suggestions for that?
davecason - Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - link
The IDE bus was restarting itself due to a power problem. I had the following plugged into the USB bus:1) USB Keyboard with USB hub with a USB mouse plugged into it.
2) USB bus-powered hub with a self-powered PDA base and a UPS plugged into it.
I removed #2 and the IDE bus began functioning normally. I guess four/six items on the USB bus was too much power draw from the system. If you experience this, get a self-powered USB hub.
Plugers - Saturday, March 4, 2006 - link
On the next revision.Add a upgradable laptop video card slot. If laptops can get a nice small Nvidia / ATI solution, why not this? Also add the other audio port, or just add a toslink for HTPC use and I think most of the high end PC sound systems have a digital input option anyway.
throw in another sodimm slot while your at it....
bldckstark - Saturday, March 4, 2006 - link
I am glad to see that for once there are not many whiny posts about the comparison systems. Thanks for the inclusion of the Sempron system.Kishkumen - Saturday, March 4, 2006 - link
Actually my interest with these Mini PCs whether Aopen or Apple is to use them as a lightweight frontend to a Linux/MythTV HTPC with storage and encoding duties relegated to a master backend and better yet no need to whine about the additional cost of an OS. The mini is small enough that it can be easily attached to the back of a plasma or LCD for a very clean look. That said, Aopen's audio solution is absolutely tragic. I really don't understand how they thought they could skimp in this area even if they were completely unaware of it's potential as a HTPC solution. At the very least a digital optical connector should have been included. Thus I'm inclined to go with the Apple solution on the audio issue alone, but in general it seems like the better hardware and I have no reason to believe I can't run Linux on it just fine. I'll be paying for an OS I don't need but maybe I can just pawn it off on ebay or I'll just keep it around for the halibut. Something to gape at once in a while like a two headed snake in a jar at the circus.JarredWalton - Saturday, March 4, 2006 - link
Does Linux run on EFI okay? I don't have any idea. It's certainly a lot more likely than XP on EFI. Anyway, the MP945 is supposed to go with at least 5.1 audio I think.mindless1 - Saturday, March 4, 2006 - link
PLEASE, quite trying to pretend Apple is some kind of leader in form factor. no, it was not the MAC cube that started SFF. This AOPEN is not imitation anything either. Did you really think the entire computer world was NOT moving towards high integration and as-small-as-possible systems?It had absolutely nothing to do with Apple. Apple merely did the same as everyone else, sometimes coming up with a particular niche product sooner than others, and sometimes later than others. The one most noteworthy thing apple did was advertising.
How about the ipod? It wasn't first either. Good grief, why in the world do you have an arbitrary false conclusion that apple was first at much of anything?
That's not to downplay Apple's influence, they did add a certain esthetic appeal, more artistic cases on many products. That's not what was implied in the article though...
JAS - Monday, March 6, 2006 - link
Just a general comment:MAC = Media Access Control, as in a computer's Ethernet address
Mac = shorthand for Macintosh
JarredWalton - Saturday, March 4, 2006 - link
By your reasoning, Apple was first at nothing, and the only first was probably the ENIAC. After all, we've just been moving to smaller computers for over 60 years now.... Seriously, there is no way you can convince me that the AOpen MiniPC wasn't an attempt at copying the Mac Mini design. Was the Mac Mini completely original? Maybe someone had something like that before, but they're the ones that really put the "Mini" computers on the map.Anyway, how about some comparisons from AOpen - nice pictures, and they clearly show that any resemblance to the Mac Mini is likely more than coincidence.
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/system/sff/aop...">MiniPC vs. Mac Mini #1
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/system/sff/aop...">MiniPC vs. Mac Mini #2
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/system/sff/aop...">MiniPC vs. Mac Mini #3
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/system/sff/aop...">MiniPC vs. Mac Mini #4
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/system/sff/aop...">MiniPC vs. Mac Mini #5
psychobriggsy - Saturday, March 4, 2006 - link
The Mac Mini looks better, both in terms of looks and design (e.g., the back panel looks so much better). If you're gonna copy a design, at least try and make it look even better if you're not going to compete on price...