Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: Asus Eee Box hands on (mini desktop with Intel Atom CPU)

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Asus Eee Box hands on (mini desktop with Intel Atom CPU)

 
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2008
Somewhere on teh intarweb "PeeCee" typed:
> "thingy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:48b7755c$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> PeeCee wrote:
>>> Picked one up yesterday for a client to see if it fit's a particular
>>> task.
>>>
>>> Overview:
>>> http://event.asus.com/eeepc/microsit...fications.html
>>>
>>> What was in this particular box:
>>> Eee Box itself (black), Laptop style power supply, screw on stand,
>>> Vesa mounting plate (for back of LCD screen) SPDIF adaptor, WiFi
>>> antenna, Manual, Warranty card, OS restore DVD, drivers CD.
>>> This one had 1GB RAM, Windows XP Home and 80GB HD in two 40GB
>>> partitions (Atom 1.6GHZ CPU).
>>> There are other colours and RAM/HD configurations available
>>> apparently. This site lists some of the variations
>>> http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/2008/06/...02-desktop-pc/
>>>
>>> Observations:
>>> (Random and not necessarily deep and meaningfull)
>>> Manual basically show's the I/O and controls, how to restore the
>>> OS, all in several languages and that's it.
>>> OS restore DVD and driver CD requires external USB DVD drive (now I
>>> know why I bought that 5.25" USB drive case)
>>>
>>> Bios
>>> Entered through the 'Del' key
>>> Fairly plain, options for Express Gate screen delay (default 10 sec)
>>> No obvious overclocking options.
>>> No power restore options (ie Off/ previous state/ on)
>>> Can power up on LAN and has a RTC Alarm start up.
>>>
>>> Starting Up:
>>> The Express Gate (Linux?) "FUN" OS shows up for 10 seconds before
>>> booting through to XP Home.
>>> From Switch on to the Express Gate Web Browser home page fully
>>> loaded took roughly 45 seconds (includes moving the pointer and
>>> clicking on the Web Icon)
>>> (This is with a WiFi LAN connection)
>>> Flash seems to play ok as does YouTube video's
>>> Express Gate also has a Photo Uploader to Flickr, IM client and
>>> Skype none of which I've tried yet.
>>>
>>> First run of XP was pretty standard, Region, time zone, Keyboard and
>>> Language, though as usual fine tinkering was required afterwards in
>>> the Control Panel / Region tool.
>>> In my case I ran it up without a wired LAN connection but with the
>>> WiFi antenna connected.
>>> Searching for Wireless points from the Wireless app in the System
>>> Tray bottom right found my Wireless LAN & it's configuration (WPA2
>>> PSK) & all I had to do was type in the pass phrase ... connected
>>> (G, haven't got N yet)
>>>
>>> XP Service Pack2 out of the box.
>>> No preinstalled Anti Virus
>>> Acrobat Reader 8 installed.
>>> Windows updates started downloading straight away as you would
>>> expect with any standard XP install.
>>> The Windows Install is bog standard apart from Asus update app's,
>>> Instructions for reinstalling the "FUN" apps (aka Express Gate)
>>> should they get corrupted and an entry for the Realtek chipset.
>>>
>>> Performance:
>>> I've no numbers for you to pick over here, but it seemed to go OK
>>> Though the task my client was looking at was not particularly
>>> onerus I was curious to see how it handled HD video.
>>> i.e. would it make a HTPC?
>>> Well if you want 1080i & up no it won't do, sound goes OK but Video
>>> is just a series of stills.
>>> However bring it back to 720p and it runs just fine.
>>> Now I find usefull as my TV is 720p and with it's small form factor
>>> it's gonna be easy to hide in the other VCR's / Amps, and STB's
>>> Compared to my MediaGate the Eee box is going to be easier to use
>>> (more familialr interface)
>>> I used the Fighter Pilot video here
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...tshowcase.aspx
>>> for HD content.
>>>
>>> For 'work' I loaded Open Office 2.4.1 (no problems) and created a
>>> sample Impress (power point) slide show.
>>> Again it just ran fine.
>>> As did Internet Explorer, Spider Solitaire, Free Cell etc.
>>>
>>> OK it's not a Gamers PC but going on the average office PC I get to
>>> 'fix' I can see these becominig a popular office PC, especially
>>> with it mounted on the back of an LCD screen.
>>> All neat and tidy, no worries with short USB Keyboard & Mouse leads.
>>>
>>> I must congratulate ASUS for putting 1 GB of RAM in, it makes all
>>> the difference to an XP PC.
>>> It shows the other major manufacturers up for the cheapskates they
>>> are. (put 256MB in & charge them double for another 256MB of
>>> 'official' RAM type cheapness)
>>>
>>> Case feels soldid enough, though the little flappy door on the
>>> front is going to go in short order I would think.
>>>
>>>
>>> And did it do what the client wanted?
>>> Yes, but that's another story, but I did measure the power usage at
>>> 23 watts max.

>>
>> What external resolution did you get?
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Thing

>
> Further notes
>
> The 'glitch' I had appears to be the Intel Mobile Graphics Acelorator
> keeping a high resolution even when reset in safe mode.
> For some reason Windows (or the intel graphics driver) does not
> automatically go back to the previous resolution if you don't confirm
> it. The aim was to see what the TV did if I feed it 1080 to the PC input
> ie would it show a scaled down image.... no such luck.
> Booting into 'VGA' mode seems to clear it.
>
> Connected to the PC input of my LCD TV or a LCD monitor I get the
> following resolutions
> 640x480
> 800x600
> 1024x768
> 1152x864
> 1280x600/720/768/960/1024
> 1400x1050
> 1600x1200
> 1856x1392
> 1920x1080/1200/1440
> 2048x1536
> all in 8/16 or 32 bit colour, 60/75/85 refresh (except 2048x1536 no
> 85hz) Plus 640x480 and 800x600 in 16 colour
>
> Pluging into my LCD TV via HDMI (used a DVI > HDMI cable from Jaycar)
> The Eee box came straight up at the TV's native 1360x768 (actuall TV
> spec is 1366x76
> Other resolutions available were
> 720x576 (standard DVD)
> 1600x900
> 1920x1080


Hi Paul.

Any chance you can run CPU Mark 1.0 on that EEE box? It's hard to find now
but I've just uploaded it at:

<http://www.yousendit.com/download/Q01FZUNxa0RENlJFQlE9PQ>

You'll just have to change the suffix from .lol to .exe and run it. It
doesn't install, it just runs. I still use that old version as I have data
for CPUs going back 10 years+ using that benchmark. I'd be really interested
to know what the Atom 1.6GHz gets. (I guessed 120 marks, I could be
over-estimating....)

As a reference, a Pentium 200MMX gets 11.4, a PII 350 22.0, a Coppermine
Celly 900MHz 57.6, a Tualatin celly 1.3GHz 107, an Athlon XP3200+ 208 and my
current system (E7300 @ 3.6GHz) 506. It only tests one core.

Cheers, and TIA if you can do it.
--
Shaun.

DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2008
Somewhere on teh intarweb "PeeCee" typed:
> "~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:48ba9911$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hi Paul.
>>
>> Any chance you can run CPU Mark 1.0 on that EEE box? It's hard to
>> find now but I've just uploaded it at:
>>
>> <http://www.yousendit.com/download/Q01FZUNxa0RENlJFQlE9PQ>
>>
>> You'll just have to change the suffix from .lol to .exe and run it.
>> It doesn't install, it just runs. I still use that old version as I
>> have data for CPUs going back 10 years+ using that benchmark. I'd be
>> really interested to know what the Atom 1.6GHz gets. (I guessed 120
>> marks, I could be over-estimating....)
>>
>> As a reference, a Pentium 200MMX gets 11.4, a PII 350 22.0, a
>> Coppermine Celly 900MHz 57.6, a Tualatin celly 1.3GHz 107, an Athlon
>> XP3200+ 208 and my current system (E7300 @ 3.6GHz) 506. It only
>> tests one core. Cheers, and TIA if you can do it.

>
> Shaun
>
> Have go it, will run ron (later ron!)


Awesome, thanks Paul.
--
Shaun.

DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2008
Somewhere on teh intarweb "PeeCee" typed:
> "~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:48bb52d9$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Somewhere on teh intarweb "PeeCee" typed:
>>> "~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:48ba9911$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Hi Paul.
>>>>
>>>> Any chance you can run CPU Mark 1.0 on that EEE box? It's hard to
>>>> find now but I've just uploaded it at:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.yousendit.com/download/Q01FZUNxa0RENlJFQlE9PQ>
>>>>
>>>> You'll just have to change the suffix from .lol to .exe and run it.
>>>> It doesn't install, it just runs. I still use that old version as I
>>>> have data for CPUs going back 10 years+ using that benchmark. I'd
>>>> be really interested to know what the Atom 1.6GHz gets. (I guessed
>>>> 120 marks, I could be over-estimating....)
>>>>
>>>> As a reference, a Pentium 200MMX gets 11.4, a PII 350 22.0, a
>>>> Coppermine Celly 900MHz 57.6, a Tualatin celly 1.3GHz 107, an
>>>> Athlon XP3200+ 208 and my current system (E7300 @ 3.6GHz) 506. It
>>>> only tests one core. Cheers, and TIA if you can do it.
>>>
>>> Have go it, will run ron (later ron!)

>>
>> Awesome, thanks Paul.

>
> Well you're not to wide of the mark....111
>
> Watched with Task Manager Performance page open, 1 CPU at about 75%
> the other at about 25% = 50% showing on the Process tab.


Cool, I thought that's about where it would be.

(It doesn't actually have two cores, it uses "Hyper-threading Technology",
same as the older single core P4s.)

So, at 111 CPU Marks (ver 1.0) it's a bit faster than a Tualatin Celeron 1.3
running on a 440BX chipset (107) and a bit slower than an AMD Applebred
Duron 1.6GHz running on an AMD 760 chipset (11.

Now consider that it's TDP [Thermal Design Power] is 4 Watts and it's
obvious what a wonderful CPU this really is! (Typically the northbridge has
a higher TDP than the CPU in Atom systems.) That Celeron's TDP was 35W and
the Duron was 45W. The Atom is doing a bit less than 40W of work going by
those CPUs for 4W. Amazing!

Now consider that the RAM and NB (and probably HDD I/O) for the Atom is much
faster than the old systems I've just compared it with and it's bloody
brilliant.

If I weren't a hardware junkie and mad overclocker I'd be getting me one of
those. Makes me wonder why I still hang on to older hardware. (I still have
those systems I benched a few years back. <g>)

Cheers Paul, and thanks for running the benchmark.
--
Shaun.

DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Asus Eee Box hands on (mini desktop with Intel Atom CPU) ~misfit~ NZ Computing 0 08-28-2008 11:06 AM
Asus: Windows EEE will outsell Linux EEE impossible NZ Computing 42 03-31-2008 08:02 AM
Asus Eee PC 4G 701 Help SoundBytes Computer Support 0 12-30-2007 01:18 PM
Asus launches Eee PC Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 49 11-05-2007 11:43 PM
Atom-Newsfeed on Website (Atom->HTML) chlori HTML 1 09-21-2005 03:43 PM



Advertisments