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
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.