Updated: AOpen MiniPC – Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery
by Jarred Walton on March 3, 2006 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Benchmark Information
There really aren't a lot of meaningful performance benchmarks to run on such systems. Winstones Business and Content Creation are a good place to start, providing an overview of typical home office capability. Futuremark's PCMark covers a similar area, and even 3DMark03/05 were able to complete, though not with impressive scores. (Let's not even worry about 3DMark06.) AutoGK provides a look at encoding benchmarks, which could be important for those looking for a diminutive HTPC. Noise, heat, and power requirements will be checked as well.
We didn't bother with network performance, since GbE connections on all the tested PCs are generally more than fast enough for home and office use. File transfer rates topped out at around 25-30 MB/s on the MiniPC, which is roughly the sustained transfer rate of the 2.5" hard drive (and burst speeds were higher but less important). If you're using GbE, you will find the integrated NIC to be more than fast enough; if you're only using 100Mb Ethernet or the optional WiFi adapter, network throughput will be substantially slower.
Finally, before we get to the actual numbers, let me just say this: while the Pentium M platform powering the MiniPC is, in most instances, slower than the competitors, I did do a fair amount of web surfing, office tasks, etc. using the system. I also wrote a decent portion of this article on the system. Anyone who has performed such tasks should already realize that a 1.73 GHz Pentium M is more than sufficient for office use, and anything faster often goes unnoticed. For the intended market, the performance is definitely acceptable.
Now, let's move on to the benchmark numbers. The AOpen MiniPC is highlighted in green, and the Sempron 3100+ system is highlighted in red, as it is the only system that is using a discrete graphics card. That will have a major impact on the 3D tests, but elsewhere, it won't matter much.
There really aren't a lot of meaningful performance benchmarks to run on such systems. Winstones Business and Content Creation are a good place to start, providing an overview of typical home office capability. Futuremark's PCMark covers a similar area, and even 3DMark03/05 were able to complete, though not with impressive scores. (Let's not even worry about 3DMark06.) AutoGK provides a look at encoding benchmarks, which could be important for those looking for a diminutive HTPC. Noise, heat, and power requirements will be checked as well.
We didn't bother with network performance, since GbE connections on all the tested PCs are generally more than fast enough for home and office use. File transfer rates topped out at around 25-30 MB/s on the MiniPC, which is roughly the sustained transfer rate of the 2.5" hard drive (and burst speeds were higher but less important). If you're using GbE, you will find the integrated NIC to be more than fast enough; if you're only using 100Mb Ethernet or the optional WiFi adapter, network throughput will be substantially slower.
Finally, before we get to the actual numbers, let me just say this: while the Pentium M platform powering the MiniPC is, in most instances, slower than the competitors, I did do a fair amount of web surfing, office tasks, etc. using the system. I also wrote a decent portion of this article on the system. Anyone who has performed such tasks should already realize that a 1.73 GHz Pentium M is more than sufficient for office use, and anything faster often goes unnoticed. For the intended market, the performance is definitely acceptable.
Now, let's move on to the benchmark numbers. The AOpen MiniPC is highlighted in green, and the Sempron 3100+ system is highlighted in red, as it is the only system that is using a discrete graphics card. That will have a major impact on the 3D tests, but elsewhere, it won't matter much.
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.