Contrary to DFI’s P55 MI-T36, the H55-ITX focuses less on overclockability and more on packing as many features as possible onto its miniaturized surface. This isn’t to say that ZOTACs board can’t be overclocked at all though. In fact, I was able to maintain a 150 BCLK while reducing Vcore and without the ability to manually set the CPU VTT voltage using our retail i3 530 CPU.

Where you’ll want to play it safe though is on the Lynnfield series of processors; looking at Zotac’s power regulation for processor VCore, there’s not enough overhead to handle Lynnfield CPU’s much past stock operating frequency. This is an area where DFI got things wrong with the MI-T36, initial BIOS releases offered free range of BCLK and voltage and users ended up burning out MOSFETs. DFI back-peddled and released a BIOS in late December that removed CPU VCore as an option, limiting overclocking to stock processor VID only. Zotac keeps things simple by removing the option to change VTT (termination and supply voltage for the intergrated memory controller and signal stages of the CPU), which limits the potential to increase bus frequencies – time will tell if this method is sufficient to prevent failures. The truth is that M-ITX motherboards aren’t designed to offer buckets of overclocking headroom; if that’s what you’re after, we think you’re better off looking towards some of the more robust micro-ATX boards like the P7H55D-M EVO from ASUS.

Also, care needs to be taken when choosing a processor heatsink for the H55-ITX. Zotac has placed the CPU socket next to the PCIe slot so any heatsink larger than Intel’s may cause interference when installing a video card. This peculiarity prevented us from installing a Coolermaster GeminII S when running with dedicated graphics. However, if you choose to use an i3 and its integrated graphics then this point is moot.

Features such as six onboard SATA ports, wireless-N networking and the ability to support i3, i5 and i7 processors are what ZOTAC really set their focus on. This feature set separates the H55-ITX from every other mini-ITX board on the market. Performance from the bundled wireless adapter was great as well. We measured file transfer speeds to be several times faster than the 802.11g cards bundled in Zotac’s earlier motherboards.

Out of the box, the H55-ITX was quick to POST and the BIOS was easy to navigate. The on-board sound, Ethernet and USB ports worked correctly. Overall, system stability was rock solid even while overclocking. The only time the board failed to POST was when the RAM was configured to work at 1600MHz, a frequency not supported by the i3 530. The H55-ITX wasn’t bundled with any additional software outside of the drivers CD. Price wise the H55-ITX is competitive with other fully featured mini-ITX motherboards, going for around $150 shipped. Mini-ITX motherboards come with a price premium and are generally more expensive than their similarly equipped micro-ATX counterparts.

Due to an innovative design, a potential for miniscule power consumption and the fact that the H55-ITX is currently the only mini-ITX motherboard on the market that supports the Core i3’s integrated graphics, the ZOTAC H55-ITX WiFi has no competition for the time being. If you've been waiting for a feature-filled mini-ITX Clarkdale motherboard, Zotac appears to have delivered.

System Benchmarks
Comments Locked

69 Comments

View All Comments

  • wysiwygbill - Saturday, March 6, 2010 - link

    There is apparently a problem with this motherboard that won't allow turbo boost to function. This wouldn't affect the i3 processors where you compared performance with the i3 but you didn't test any i5 processors or compare i7 performance with the DFI.

    I'd be interested to see how much difference the turbo boost would make by comparing i5 performance with the i3 or by comparing the i7 performance with a different motherboard.

    That's assuming you aren't concerned with the DFI bursting into flames should you put an i7 in it. :-)

  • Shadowmaster625 - Friday, March 5, 2010 - link

    $150 for this board is pure insanity. MAYBE if they soldered an i3 to the board it might be worth that much. What is the reasoning behind paying over $300 for a mob/cpu/RAM combo for something like an HTPC? How does this possibly justify a 50% premium versus a similar AMD HTPC setup?
  • ROID R4GE - Wednesday, March 3, 2010 - link

    What I am most interested in (and haven't seen anyone mention) is finding out if this motherboard along with and i3 530 can handle playback of a 1080p .mkv file.

    have you done any testing of this type?
  • ROID R4GE - Friday, March 12, 2010 - link

    ok, if anyone is interested. the core i3 and this motherboard can handle a .mkv 1080p movie
  • justniz - Monday, March 1, 2010 - link

    The tests would have been A LOT more informative if you had included figures from the same tests on a full-sized motherboard with the same ram, cpu and graphics card, so we could see exactly how much of a penalty (if any) the just switching to the smaller size board brings.
  • ScavengerLX - Monday, March 1, 2010 - link

    From my experience power consumption between an mATX and its mini-ITX counterpart is generally around a ~5 watts higher. Not a huge difference. I think it would be interesting to see how an ATX system compares to a comparable mini-ITX system though.

    Josh
  • willtriv - Monday, March 1, 2010 - link

    DFI had a x55 series ITX board on the market for a few months.
    Unless we are talking about h55 and it was a p55...
  • ggathagan - Monday, March 1, 2010 - link

    Yes, this is an H55 chipset, allowing for the use of the i3/i5 on-die GPU, whereas DFI's board is P55, requiring an additional GPU card.
  • karlkesselman - Monday, March 1, 2010 - link

    it seems to me that actually for IDLE power consumption the DFI motherboard is better than Zotac, is it not?
    We have:
    Zotac H55 i3 530 (not igp) = 53 W
    DFI MI-P55 i3 530 (not igp) = 43 W

    So the DFI is 10 W lower on IDLE than Zotac. Can you confirm this? (I assume they use same video card in this case)
  • Ben - Monday, March 1, 2010 - link

    Something in a banner ad in this article just tried to install a fake Antivirus on my computer!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now