Updated: AOpen MiniPC – Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery
by Jarred Walton on March 3, 2006 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Encoding and Multimedia Benchmarks
Using AutoGK, we tested the multimedia encoding capabilities of the systems. For HTPC use, we tested the playback of several different video files as well and checked CPU use. For video playback, we used DVI as well as component output running 720p resolutions. We also tested performance connected to a Dell 2405FPW running at the native 1920x1200 resolution of the display, as video scaling can increase the load on the system for video content. The Pentium 4 506 chip had some issues during testing, so unfortunately, we didn't get AutoGK results with it.
DivX and Xvid encoding are good enough for casual use, but clearly, the Pentium M chip is not as fast as other platforms. Even the lowly Sempron 3100+ outpaces the Pentium M 740, though the margin is relatively close. Running a Core Duo processor would help quite a bit, but even that wouldn't catch up with Pentium D or Athlon X2 performance. For multimedia creation, the MiniPC is probably too slow for serious work. However, if you just want to encode the occasional video clip, letting the system process the file overnight will get the job done before you wake up in the morning. WMV9HD encoding is a different matter, but that's slow even on the fastest dual core systems.
Video Decoding
If you have a second PC doing the encoding work, the MiniPC works quite well as an HTPC. For video playback, there won't be any graphs, but I instead focused on the overall experience. Lower demand playback like MPEG-2 isn't even remotely a problem, so let's move on to the more demanding tasks.
Playing back 720p and 1080i content - even with scaling the video to fill the screen - worked without a hitch, with the CPU running a maximum of 50-80% load. (We'll talk a bit more about 1080i content later.) Every now and then, you might see a slight skip, most likely caused by another application using the hard disk, but otherwise, HDTV content worked fine. DivX and Xvid playback presented no difficulties either, with CPU load for both under 25% at typical (720x480) resolutions. DivXHD used more CPU time for the higher resolution, but playback still only used about 50% of the CPU power.
The other systems were all equal to the MiniPC or substantially better, but the bottom line is that for the currently most common video formats, all of the tested systems handled MPEG-2/HD/DivX/Xvid video playback with enough CPU power left in reserve that stutters shouldn't be a problem. Multitasking might present problems on the slower systems, of course, so we wouldn't recommend trying dual display output on the MiniPC with one display showing an HDTV stream, if you're trying to get work done, but few people really do that in our experience.
WMV9HD is a different story, but we've come to expect that from our most brutal video playback tests. 720p was okay, though it sometimes struggled (hitting upwards of 80% CPU usage); basically, it ran about as well as a 1080i HD transport stream. 1080p on the other hand was essentially unwatchable. Dual cores and even GPU acceleration are pretty much required to get completely smooth WMV9HD support for 1080p content; even a fast Athlon X2 or Pentium D will struggle with 1080p WMV9HD decoding, unless the GPU offloads some of the work. As nice as WMV9HD looks, it's difficult to justify the performance requirements at this time. DivXHD files encode and decode with much less CPU power, and file sizes are pretty comparable. As long as you stick to the other less CPU intensive codecs, the MiniPC will work fine.
Using AutoGK, we tested the multimedia encoding capabilities of the systems. For HTPC use, we tested the playback of several different video files as well and checked CPU use. For video playback, we used DVI as well as component output running 720p resolutions. We also tested performance connected to a Dell 2405FPW running at the native 1920x1200 resolution of the display, as video scaling can increase the load on the system for video content. The Pentium 4 506 chip had some issues during testing, so unfortunately, we didn't get AutoGK results with it.
DivX and Xvid encoding are good enough for casual use, but clearly, the Pentium M chip is not as fast as other platforms. Even the lowly Sempron 3100+ outpaces the Pentium M 740, though the margin is relatively close. Running a Core Duo processor would help quite a bit, but even that wouldn't catch up with Pentium D or Athlon X2 performance. For multimedia creation, the MiniPC is probably too slow for serious work. However, if you just want to encode the occasional video clip, letting the system process the file overnight will get the job done before you wake up in the morning. WMV9HD encoding is a different matter, but that's slow even on the fastest dual core systems.
Video Decoding
If you have a second PC doing the encoding work, the MiniPC works quite well as an HTPC. For video playback, there won't be any graphs, but I instead focused on the overall experience. Lower demand playback like MPEG-2 isn't even remotely a problem, so let's move on to the more demanding tasks.
Playing back 720p and 1080i content - even with scaling the video to fill the screen - worked without a hitch, with the CPU running a maximum of 50-80% load. (We'll talk a bit more about 1080i content later.) Every now and then, you might see a slight skip, most likely caused by another application using the hard disk, but otherwise, HDTV content worked fine. DivX and Xvid playback presented no difficulties either, with CPU load for both under 25% at typical (720x480) resolutions. DivXHD used more CPU time for the higher resolution, but playback still only used about 50% of the CPU power.
The other systems were all equal to the MiniPC or substantially better, but the bottom line is that for the currently most common video formats, all of the tested systems handled MPEG-2/HD/DivX/Xvid video playback with enough CPU power left in reserve that stutters shouldn't be a problem. Multitasking might present problems on the slower systems, of course, so we wouldn't recommend trying dual display output on the MiniPC with one display showing an HDTV stream, if you're trying to get work done, but few people really do that in our experience.
WMV9HD is a different story, but we've come to expect that from our most brutal video playback tests. 720p was okay, though it sometimes struggled (hitting upwards of 80% CPU usage); basically, it ran about as well as a 1080i HD transport stream. 1080p on the other hand was essentially unwatchable. Dual cores and even GPU acceleration are pretty much required to get completely smooth WMV9HD support for 1080p content; even a fast Athlon X2 or Pentium D will struggle with 1080p WMV9HD decoding, unless the GPU offloads some of the work. As nice as WMV9HD looks, it's difficult to justify the performance requirements at this time. DivXHD files encode and decode with much less CPU power, and file sizes are pretty comparable. As long as you stick to the other less CPU intensive codecs, the MiniPC will work fine.
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.