Lacking any other barebones PC to compare, I built ASRock’s M8 up as a competitor to Don’s $1300 System Builder Marathon machine. And it did well, enjoying a 12.4% performance lead. There’s still a matter of value though:

A value loss of 3% is still a loss, even if it is marginal. And I have to take credit for that, if only because the parts I chose made this configuration lose its value race. It might look like I over-spent on my effort. In reality, though, I over-saved. Rather than picking and choosing what I wanted to put inside the M8 during an online shopping trip, I used hardware I had in the lab.
The $550 ASRock M8 includes $150 worth of overpriced optical drive and power supply, and style is the justification for that disc drive. The remaining parts include a $180 motherboard and a case that, based on subtraction, needs to be worth $220. Since M8 buyers are paying over $100 extra for a bit of pizazz, I experimented with the charts and found that the parts I picked really weren't bad. If the M8 sold for $450, I would have even beaten Don's $1300 machine. Ouch.
It's not that there aren't enthusiasts who'll pay an extra $100 or so for style. We simply don't like paying for it with money and a performance compromise (that's why Chris was so stoked about the Tiki, with its then-fastest GTX 680 and a then-fastest -3770K at a constant 4.3 GHz). The M8 is supposed to be a high-end gaming machine, but it runs too hot for that. And if you want to make a case for HTPC placement, let me assure you that it's too noisy. And yet, everyone I’ve asked still loves the machine, with its thick aluminum side panels, cast aluminum handles, and splendid good looks. ASRock could justify its price by simply pointing to how much it costs to make.
I won't blame ASRock for the M8’s shortcomings. DesignworksUSA conceptualized this thing, after all. And even if BMW Group hadn’t specified the easily-correctable (and poor-performing) fan orientation, there are still problems with the size of these fans. The limited airflow of 70 x 10 mm fans forces ASRock to use 4000 RPM models, and the design team could have switched to 80 x 25 mm fans early on without significantly altering the case’s size or shape.
With the tooling paid for, there are few things ASRock could do to turn this barebones system into more of a winner. First, it could start shipping the machine with the fans configured for bottom-to-top airflow, since that solved the worst of my thermal issues. Second, it might want to include (and even charge for) a custom-fit CPU cooler to maximize surface area within its confined space. Third, it could lower the minimum fan speed below 1000 RPM, so that the machine at least idles quietly. None of those changes require ASRock to sacrifice the money already spent on manufacturing the M8.
Update October 28
ASRock has informed us that it has shipped the M8 with upgraded fans that have a wider RPM range, with an 800 RPM minimum, to reduce low-load noise. We can only hope that they also fix the fan direction.
A second look at the Page 6 airflow diagram appears to indicate that the chassis designer intended the CPU fan to receive air through vents in the side panel. Another photo on that page shows that this side panel is molded with faux louvers. Actual louvers have slots, and modders would likely find additional cooling benefits by slotting these louvers.
- ASRock's M8: Build Your Own Compact Gaming Box
- ASRock M8 Mini-ITX Gaming PC
- Inside ASRock's M8 Chassis
- Taking More Of The M8 Apart
- Hardware Installation
- Overcoming A Significant Thermal Issue
- ASRock M8 Software
- Z87-M8 Motherboard Firmware
- Benchmark And Overclocking Configurations
- Results: Synthetic Benchmarks
- Results: Battlefield 3
- Results: Far Cry 3
- Results: F1 2012
- Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Results: Audio And Video Encoding
- Results: Adobe Creative Suite
- Results: Productivity
- Results: File Compression
- Power Consumption And Heat
- Average Performance And Efficiency
- Is ASRock's M8 A High-End Mini-ITX Winner?
Completely gut the system, since the bottom panel is secured from the inside with four screws.
And then slice up the wire sleeves, since the guide on each fan frame was farther apart.
CPU load temperature immediately dropped by roughly 20°, but at the expense of messier cabling.
Awesome way of thinking Thomas, that's why I love you guys. I am curious however to know if you emailed them to tell them about this solution. Since it made such a dramatic difference they should change the way those fans are positioned.
Does the added trace length or extra connection required to use a riser card impose any kind of penalty on graphics cards? Please test this, by using one on a typical motherboard just for some measurements.
Does the added trace length or extra connection required to use a riser card impose any kind of penalty on graphics cards? Please test this, by using one on a typical motherboard just for some measurements.
It's probably obvious to most people that those nine pages of tests were primarily motherboard validation.
Or is it a power supply review?
It's probably obvious to most people that those nine pages of tests were primarily motherboard validation.
Or is it a power supply review?
Not without oscilloscope shots of noise and ripple. I think this particular PSU has been reviewed though, perhaps when HardwareSecrets reviewed one of the Silverstone cases that uses it. I'm not sure; they may have only done the 300W version that way, but I thought I'd seen this one done somewhere too... Anyway, FSP is one of the better PSU OEMs, and I'd be inclined to trust this one.
I wouldn't expect ASRock to want to re-tool this, but a case manufacturer might readily do so. I really need to post some pics of "Hobo," a build I finished recently (except for the graphics card) using one of those InWin slim cases. I'm waiting for some R7 reviews before deciding what graphics card it gets, which is limited to a low-profile model.
Incidentally, that build uses an ASRock Z77E-ITX. I got it quite some time ago from HardwareSecrets (it was their review sample), without a warranty, but when it died suddenly (apparent VRM failure), ASRock replaced it for $50. I was happy about that.
The reason I would build such a small machine like this is for portability to take and game at friends houses so gaming results matter more than productivity.
In my perspective you lost.
P.S. It's shocking that you figured out a dramatic and easy solution to M8's cooling and noise problem and their engineers couldn't figure that on their own. I wonder if they're going to fix this so that I could wait on the fix, or just buy it now with the i5-4670K CPU and not have to worry so much about it overheating.
Thanks for this wonderful and thorough review!
It's probably obvious to most people that those nine pages of tests were primarily motherboard validation.
The reason I would build such a small machine like this is for portability to take and game at friends houses so gaming results matter more than productivity.
In my perspective you lost.
I don't understand this response at all, in particular since it seems to contradict itself.
If portability is the goal, this machine creamed Don's (to be fair, Don wasn't building for portability). I'd probably say the same even if it used an i3 with the stock cooler. A rig built to provide "show-off" settings is unlikely to be easy to carry around at all. Here is a small, easily portable machine that can play any game on enjoyable settings, and does quite well at a variety of tasks.