Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Recycled HTPC is Woody, Fuzzy

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 13 comments

Want a PC made with recyclable wood and sheep leather? This is your HTPC.

Looking for a PC that is both unusual and environmentally friendly? Then take a look at Design Hara's latest luxury creation, a somewhat green HTPC that looks more like a fluffy subwoofer than anything related to Intel. The HTPC doesn't seem to really have a name, but the side covers of the chassis are constructed with recycled, handcrafted cypress wood, and provides a range of colors. The front isn't quite so woody, constructed of natural sheep leather. Baaaah.

According to Born Rich, the internal organs are connected by bolts and nuts to "make it easier to separate recyclable e-waste." The rig only consumes an average of 60 watts per hour, using a third less energy compared to standard desktop computers. Images provided by Design Hara show additional strange, butterfly-like speakers (as seen to the right), however there's no indication if they are separate, or come packed with the HTPC.

Under the eco-friendly hood, the HTPC features Zotac's 9300-ITX WIFI motherboard, providing three SATA 3.0 Gb/s ports with support for RAID 0, 1, 0+1, and 5. This board also has an integrated Nvidia GeForce 9300 GPU that display resolutions of up to 2560 x 1600. Although energy efficient, the GPU received some tweaks: a 22-percent increase in the engine clock, and a 14-percent increase in the shader clock. Design Hara indicates that the motherboard supports multi-display, HDMI 1.3, and Hybrid SLI to increase graphic performance.

Also under the hood is Intel's Core 2 Duo or Quad processor. The HTPC comes configured with 4 GB or RAM and a 1 TB HDD, however consumers can option to purchase up to 8 GB of RAM and a (1 TB?) SSD. The rig also provides a Blu-ray drive for HD movies, however no audio information was provided. As for pricing of the HTPC, Design Hara doesn't offer any numbers online without further contact.

Display all 13 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 2 Hide
    mlopinto2k1 , January 14, 2010 12:54 PM
    I hate to be so negative but that thing looks like it was torn out of the 60's. Although, it is cool looking as well! If my house was built around that type of decor I would consider such a creature to compute for me.
  • -1 Hide
    Katsushiro , January 14, 2010 1:08 PM
    What is a watt per hour? And is 60 of them good or bad?
  • 0 Hide
    traesta , January 14, 2010 1:52 PM
    "option to purchase up to 8 GB of RAM and a (1 TB?) SSD" what what what ????!?!?!?! a 1 tb ssd goodness
  • 0 Hide
    jsc , January 14, 2010 2:19 PM
    Katsushiro, assuming that you have a serious question, 60 watts per hour is very good.
  • 0 Hide
    zak_mckraken , January 14, 2010 2:28 PM
    Did Mr. Parrish just bleated in an article?
  • 6 Hide
    Anonymous , January 14, 2010 2:31 PM
    "As for pricing of the HTPC, Design Hara doesn't offer any numbers online without further contact."

    Maybe they're just trying to pull the wool over our eyes...
  • 0 Hide
    Shadow703793 , January 14, 2010 3:36 PM
    Pffff.... that looks like cr@p compared to this:
  • 1 Hide
    endorphines , January 14, 2010 3:36 PM
    How can it support Raid 0+1 with only 3 sata ports? you need atleast 4 drives for that.
  • 0 Hide
    wildwell , January 14, 2010 3:39 PM
    The price must be outrageous if you have to contact them personally just to discuss it.
  • 0 Hide
    agnickolov , January 14, 2010 8:00 PM
    jscKatsushiro, assuming that you have a serious question, 60 watts per hour is very good.

    Actually, he poses a very sound question. We know what a watt is, we know what a watt-hour is (watts times the hours it was on), but what an watt (work per time) divided by hour (unit of time) means is beyond me too. Kind of like acceleration for work done perhaps? E.g. in 1 hour it improves its performance 60 times?
  • 0 Hide
    muthah , January 14, 2010 8:05 PM
    those are the ferguson hill mini speakers , VERY nice !!
  • 0 Hide
    Katsushiro , January 15, 2010 2:59 PM
    Yay someone (agnickolov) got it!
  • 0 Hide
    WyomingKnott , January 20, 2010 12:32 PM
    Ahh. So it should have said "Sixty watt-hours per hour?"

    (just kidding. it's the next natural extension of innumeracy. I have actually seen "x kilowatt-hours per year" in news stories. that may be due to averaging, or ignorance.)