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
Questar - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
Where else in the x86 market is Apple not price competetive?rowcroft - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
Considering it's Friday, the new Mac Mini's were announced on Tuesday (one is on a FedEx truck on it's way to my house) the article really shouldn't have the errors that it does. You can certainly tell Anand didn't write this one....JarredWalton - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
There are a couple places where I mention the fact that this has already been superceded by the new Mac Mini. Considering this product is less than two months old (and really only 1 month in the US), the choice is either to not review it at all or to review it and basically end up with "nice, but unless you're a die-hard Windows user the Mac Mini is better." If it wasn't clear that I think that the Mac Mini is the better choice, I apologize. However, for people dead set on XP, until the MP945 is launched you really don't have any other option that uses a Pentium M chip. The only factual error right now (that is corrected) is that a USB X-Fi doesn't exist, unless you've spotted something else?rowcroft - Saturday, March 4, 2006 - link
I was referring to comments about i386 macs not yet shipping on the first page and overall sense that there the comparable mini's are the one's released a year ago now. I was a bit too harsh though, I apologize for that.JarredWalton - Saturday, March 4, 2006 - link
Oh... heh. That intro page was written a couple weeks ago, then the article got delayed as I waited for some answers and other information. I'll change it to the present tense instead of future tense. Of course, we're still waiting for a "Windows on Intel Macs" solution. I'm betting Vista will be necessary, as I don't know if it's even feasible to get XP runnign on an EFI architecture without massive effort. (First person to prove me wrong gets a pretty sizeable check, I suppose.)Nocturnal - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
I have worked with many laptops and this unit doesn't look that much different from the pictures although the pictures are probably a little bigger than the actual unit (I think?). Other than that, I'd definately invest in one of these for the wife.themelon - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
There are quite a few USB audio devices on the market today, including an X-Fi product from Creative.They have a USB X-Fi? It's not on there product page and this is the first time that I have seen mention of one.
JarredWalton - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
Right you are. I could have sworn I saw a Creative X-Fi USB, but I'm clearly mistaken. The best Creative USB option is still the Audigy 2 NX (right?). I will fix this error.psychobriggsy - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
Pointless unless you have a Windows based application that you need to use.And for the uses this type of system will be good for, there aren't many of those.
If you want a small system, then the Mac Mini is clearly the better choice, and will be cheaper to boot. AOpen really need to trim their prices when they release their more-equivalent update.
There is still the issue of the market size for a computer this small. In home entertainment systems you have the option of creating a system as large as your standard HiFi separate. Elsewhere the large box can be stuck under the desk. However it is ideal as a zero-configuration computer, one that you'll use until it dies or you replace it.
It feels really odd writing 'Macs are cheaper and better' ...
Hikari - Friday, March 3, 2006 - link
Page two says, "Open has cloned the original Mac Mini with a system that is going to be faster in nearly every area."How old is this review? This isn't even close to as fast as a Mac mini with a Core Duo in it and 945G chipset. You just might want ot make sure you're making it clear that its slower than the old G4-based mini.