Now that we've measured power consumption during video playback, Sandra's Cryptography benchmark, and gaming, we want to see how hot these little systems get in the same tasks. Again, we start with a look at each machine sitting idle.
There's a surprisingly large thermal range just sitting at active idle (between 36 and 53 °C). Moreover, the passively-cooled LGX ML300 actually runs one degree cooler than ASRock's VisionX 420D.
The numbers tighten up to a range of 42 and 57 °C when we fire up HD video playback. Naturally, these small enclosures have a tougher time venting hot air than larger desktops. But none of the results are worrisome thus far.
Each PCs spikes early on in the chart, and then cools back down to its idle temperature. Again, we're surprised by how well the passively-cooled LGX ML300 deals with the heat of a dual-core platform compared to the competition.
Our last test measures GPU temperature during the Grid 2 benchmark. The VisionX's discrete GPU doesn't spike much higher than the integrated graphics processors, despite its superior performance.
Current page: Temperature BenchmarksPrev Page Power Usage Benchmarks Next Page Four Mini-PCs Receive Special Recognition
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Not a single AMD based SFF PC?Reply
I am disappoint, this would be a great area for AMD to show their competitiveness.
@outlw6669I built one based on the A6 5200, and it's perfect for what I need it for. It's low power, more than fast enough for what 99% of the people do, quiet, and inexpensive. I'm a little surprised they didn't choose something based on the Jaguar for that reason, but it might just be a situation where nothing with one was sent to them for review. Certainly this is a poor representation, without both Jaguar and Bay Trail missing. I got to the first page, read what they had, looked at the cases, and moved on. Reading about different versions of Ivy Bridge and Haswell and how they compare to each other is profoundly uninteresting.Reply
I wouldn't mind having a small system like this. Maybe Mid-Year when everyone's CPU/APUs are out, I'll have the chance to make a smart buy. Thanks for the article. :)Reply
Buy a laptop and hook a screen to it; no compromises.Reply
It is interesting that by going slightly larger with the enclosure space (still keeping within cube/rectangle/media player shape) opens up the possibility of so much more power....dedicated gfx, full cpu, etc etc., and, can be cheaper to build - depending on the users requirements.......of course, at the cost of power requirements, etc. I'm thinking most folk would ideally chose a slightly larger form factor for living room/media pc duties.On the other hand, if constraints are tight (form factor in this article) and the end user's requirements match, then these options are worth considering.Reply
Maybe Tom's could do some options on Media PC/HTPC builds for a future article?Reply
Power. I don't care about no power. Where's the love for the old games? If I want to play some of the classics which just don't emulate properly, I have to hunt for a heavy old Pentium3 box and try to get it working. How about a cheap mini PC with miniaturized legacy hardware for full compatibility to dual-boot win98 & XP, with gameports, VGA & S-Video, PS/2 & USB, IDE & SATA external ribbon & power connectors, & a turbo button for choosing between 2 processors 200MHz & 3GHz?Reply
this was exactly was i was looking for deploying php softwareReply
I am a huge fan of compact systems. Almost everything I have built has been ITX. But I've had a hard time with the NUC form factor. As a desktop, I think it's actually too small. One of those boxes would get lost on my desk, continuously being pushed around by other clutter. Now, if I had a hutch with an optimally sized cubby, that might be a different story.Reply
VESA mounted on the back of a monitor, these look really clunky, and I'd rather go with an AIO kit using the thin mini-ITX form factor where I have more control over processor choice.
I'd be more excited if this technology and form factor were applied in a more interchangeable system with a standardized GPU socket. I really like what ASRock and Gigabyte have done with their compact systems. They're not as compact, but having something a little more substantial on my desk is a good thing, and they pack a lot of punch. I just wish the standards were developed to allow builders to replicate that feat - pipe dream, I know.
One thing is for sure, AMD needs to develop it's own equivalent of the NUC and thin Mini-ITX. The success of it's Kaveri line I think would be helped out by innovation in form factor.
I think you should compare the Mac Mini to these, that way we can see how it adds up.Reply