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 Benchmarks
We'll start with the most likely usage scenario, general office and system performance. PCMark 04 and 05 were run along with Winstones 2004. Note that both PCMark versions run some 2D and 3D tests, so the IGP will factor into those scores. The AOpen MZ855 could only complete PCMark04 due to the Intel Extreme 2 integrated graphics.
This is basically what we've come to expect from Pentium M systems. It comes out the slowest of all the tested systems, but even dual core Pentium D systems aren't much faster in business tasks. The fact is that the MiniPC does fine in office tasks - it's up to 35% slower than the A64 4000+, but you'll seldom notice. However, the MiniPC struggles a bit in multimedia tasks and is almost half as fast as the 4000+; in many multimedia tasks you will notice the difference. It's doubtful that anyone would really buy this box with the intention of doing lots of video editing, but it can still best most three-year-old PCs in just about every office-related task. The 2.5" 5400 RPM hard drive also has an impact on overall performance, but it's really not too bad compared to the old 4200 RPM drives from a couple years ago.
The Futuremark products show a bit larger spread, and 3DMark scores are almost superfluous for the test systems. Real games might be able to run on some of the IGP solutions out there, but the demanding titles will often struggle to get playable frame rates even at 640x480 with minimal detail settings. Half-Life (the original) did run quite well on all of the systems at 800x600 and even 1024x768 in some cases, but that's about as far as you'd want to go.
Notice also how much of an impact the 6600 GPU has on the Sempron system: we would rate the 3100+ as being slightly slower than the PM 740 overall, and definitely slower than any of the other tested CPUs in overall performance. However, the fastest systems that we tested with the best IGP solutions currently available are still completely dominated by one of the slowest shipping processors around, once you add in a moderate GPU. Does this mean that the MiniPC (or any of the other systems) aren't worth having? Of course not, provided that 3D/gaming isn't a requirement.
We'll start with the most likely usage scenario, general office and system performance. PCMark 04 and 05 were run along with Winstones 2004. Note that both PCMark versions run some 2D and 3D tests, so the IGP will factor into those scores. The AOpen MZ855 could only complete PCMark04 due to the Intel Extreme 2 integrated graphics.
This is basically what we've come to expect from Pentium M systems. It comes out the slowest of all the tested systems, but even dual core Pentium D systems aren't much faster in business tasks. The fact is that the MiniPC does fine in office tasks - it's up to 35% slower than the A64 4000+, but you'll seldom notice. However, the MiniPC struggles a bit in multimedia tasks and is almost half as fast as the 4000+; in many multimedia tasks you will notice the difference. It's doubtful that anyone would really buy this box with the intention of doing lots of video editing, but it can still best most three-year-old PCs in just about every office-related task. The 2.5" 5400 RPM hard drive also has an impact on overall performance, but it's really not too bad compared to the old 4200 RPM drives from a couple years ago.
The Futuremark products show a bit larger spread, and 3DMark scores are almost superfluous for the test systems. Real games might be able to run on some of the IGP solutions out there, but the demanding titles will often struggle to get playable frame rates even at 640x480 with minimal detail settings. Half-Life (the original) did run quite well on all of the systems at 800x600 and even 1024x768 in some cases, but that's about as far as you'd want to go.
Notice also how much of an impact the 6600 GPU has on the Sempron system: we would rate the 3100+ as being slightly slower than the PM 740 overall, and definitely slower than any of the other tested CPUs in overall performance. However, the fastest systems that we tested with the best IGP solutions currently available are still completely dominated by one of the slowest shipping processors around, once you add in a moderate GPU. Does this mean that the MiniPC (or any of the other systems) aren't worth having? Of course not, provided that 3D/gaming isn't a requirement.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
54 Comments
View All Comments
bldckstark - Saturday, March 4, 2006 - link
Maybe lots and lots of people do care, but I couldn't give a crap less about what the back panel of any computer looks like. Maybe someone could tell me why they do.As for it not looking better, that would be a subjective opinion.
Snuffalufagus - Saturday, March 4, 2006 - link
Just for the sake of the 'Company that sucks' copied the 'company that had the idea first' argument, what, in a low profile box, of the same approximate dimensions, could they have done to make people not claim it was a duplicate? Change the color? Change the rubber foot pads? Revert back to PS2 connections? This idea that one company shouldn't build off the strengths found in another is stupid, and would ultimately lead to stagnation if no company learned from the mistakes and successes of another.Copying form doesn't really mean shit as far as one being better. Hell, I think the Mac Mini is a piece of crap due to it's lack of versatility, but now its being praised for that capability now that this new piece of crap is out (i.e. two vs. one mem slot).
FWIW - this wasn't purely a response to your post, it was just a covenient place to put the comment.
JarredWalton - Saturday, March 4, 2006 - link
I couldn't care less about copying. Whoever does it best gets my vote. The lack of versatility really isn't a major lack, though. The only things the MiniPC can't do are:1) Gaming (other than old games or 2D stuff)
2) High-end audio (without USB add-on)
3) TV Tuner stuff
4) High performance computing.
Most people don't need any of those things. Given that it's small, reasonably fast, and reasonably quiet (and all of the above pretty much applies to the Mac Minis as well), these things could be great for the less power hungry people.
Unfortunately, my mom still can't use a computer worth a darn, so reducing hardware complexity isn't going to help her with the software side. (And please don't bother suggesting OSX; she really is clueless about computers, and we're just happy when she can manage to read/write email!)
Herrterror - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
yeah, poor Apple. They wanted to introduce Sloanism to the computer industry and ended up losing out to copycats.kmmatney - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
The price of this has to be at least lower than a laptop. You can get a decent laptop for the same price, with a built-in LCD and Keyboard, and a lot more IO. You can still just hook up a Keyboard and Monitor with a laptop, as I do at work everyday, plus you get portability if you need it.JarredWalton - Saturday, March 4, 2006 - link
A few things laptops are generally lacking:1) DVI output
2) Component output
3) Anything more than 2.1 audio output
So, the HDTV connections of the MiniPC are definitely something to think about. Component out is probably the best way to guarantee a system can function as an HTPC (though the whole HDCP issue is looming on the horizon....) Also, these systems (Mac Mini/MiniPC) are both smaller than a laptop - why have a screen if you're not going to use it, right? But I do agree that the price needs to at least match an equivalent laptop.
WhoBeDaPlaya - Monday, March 6, 2006 - link
The Audigy 2 ZS PCMCIA has #3 covered ;)Been using it with my trusty 'ol eMachines m6805 since late 2004.
Snuffalufagus - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
but fill a particular niche market that's appealing for certain applications.joey2264 - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
I was just thinking ... what if they did an end run around apple by making this a dvr? Apple's stupid allegiance with the content providers practically guarantees they will never put out a true dvr, but aopen obviously has no such qualms. They need to make a version with core duo, decent tv tuner built-in(preferably ati 550 pro if that was possible), 2 ram slots, at least 4 usb ports, and spdif (basically the same ports as the mac mini + a tv in).How cool would that be? It might even put the pressure on apple to produce a dvr of their own.
joey2264 - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
I think the key thing here, the reason why Apple can charge such a low price, is because you are not paying for the os with the mac mini. This price advantage does not factor itself into every other Apple product, because of Apple's crazy profit margins. But this is the one product where they are willing to make little to no profit, and so, who whodathunkit, they are price competitive. If only they would take a similar strategy (although obviously not to this extreme) with their other products).The only way the wintel world could compete is if Microsoft designed a mini pc of their own, or gave it away to an extra special favorite manufacturer of theirs.