Slashdot Mirror
Intel Compute Stick Updated With Cherry Trail Atom, Tested (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes: The original Intel Compute Stick wasn't without issues. Last year's model featured dated 802.11n wireless connectivity and had only a single USB port, which meant using a hub and/or dongles, should you want to connect multiple peripherals to the device or boost its wireless capabilities. The new updated Intel Compute Stick, however, features Intel's newer Cherry Trail Atom platform, with 802.11ac 2x2 WiFi, and USB 3.0. There's still just 2GB of RAM in the device, along with 32GB of storage, but Windows 10 Home also now comes pre-installed. The result is a fully functional PC that won't burn up any benchmarks but offers utility for mainstream computing tasks and is even capable of streaming up to 4K video content. The little device can essentially turn any HDMI-equipped display into a basic PC.
I wish Intel would make a firewall stick with a decently capable Atom CPU, 2GB of ram, 8GB of flash storage and 2x Intel gigabit nics.
The proliferation of ARM architecture seems to be scaring the shit out of them
I wonder whether Microsoft is paying Intel, or Intel is paying Microsoft to put Windows 10 on it. IMHO Android x86 stripped free of Google spyware would have been a better option for "basic computing tasks".
I want my next TV not to do anything on it's own. I only need a switch between the 4-5HDMI inputs it needs.
Putting OSes which wont be supported in a few years and apps which are there just for advertising the current generation of TVs into a device which easily lasts 5-10 years in nothing but planned obsolescence.
Just last week, a friend gave me an old PC which he had used as a BSD file server. It has a Celeron 430, 1.8 GHz. I threw in 4 gigs of DDR2 and an old 128 gigs Kingston SSD.
Could anyone tell me how this stick compares to the above machine?
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Stop and think about this 'complaint' whenever you've had a frustrating day in this field. It never stands still.
Why would anyone design a small plastic shell with a narrow airspace inside that requires what must be the world's tiniest, cutest and probably dust-prone fan, that spins up "fairly often" says the article, to provide obviously insufficient cooling for longevity since it's "warm to the touch"...
And side connectors (likely) PCB mounted. Yeah, those tiny high strain connectors that tend to spread out or pop off, rendering expensive modern devices still functional but useless...
All this INSTEAD of making the whole package consist of a two-piece hollow passive aluminum heat sink tightly bonded to the processor and other hot chips, with recessed hollows that securely anchor and back up the PCB mounted sockets so that they suffer no stress whatsoever as plugs are inserted and pulled? With no moving parts whatsoever?
Please explain like I'm five.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Dang it Intel, if you want people to use these things, they either need to be more powerful (actually capable of playing a 4K@60fps video) or you need to admit these products are garbage-tier and ship them with a Linux Distro on them so you're not setting expectations too high.
Seriously, aside from some potential IoT purposes, these things are no more powerful than the same chips they put out 10 years ago.
Contrary to the people here saying "why?", I think this is a great step in the right direction.
This device is:
Tiny form factor. Check.
Good performance. Check(for it's size/price)
Good price. Almost check. The price is decent, but needs to be brought down to the sub $100 range.
Like I said, this is a step in the right direction. An x86 1.8GHz quad core this tiny is fantastic, with countless applications. But, there are still issues that need to be resolved before I get fully on board and start buying these in bulk.
Fan? No! Devices such as these need to be completely passively cooled and operable even in a box out in the sun.
Price is still high.
When looking at my "embedded" use cases, this device is a contender barely beating the Raspberry Pi 2 by having 4K and Windows capability. But, the price will still cause me to choose the Raspberry in most cases. Literally 23% or the cost.
Whoops, got the screen resolution wrong, it's 1980x1200. Also forgot to mention it has 64GB of storage instead of 32GB.
Yes, I too would like a monitor-style TV (loads of inputs, *no* built-in tuners or even built-in audio), but you wouldn't suggest an actual computer monitor because the price increases exponentially once you go beyond a 24" monitor.
Dell's 55" computer monitor ("only" 1080p!) is over 1,000 pounds ($1500) in the UK, whereas a 55" 1080p TV can be had for little as 400 pounds ($600).
There is a state mandated "television license" attached to TVs sold in my country (and most other countries in the fascist union, I'm not sure there is a EU country without this?). I know this is true in the UK. This gives actual computer monitors somewhat of an competitive edge over TVs if you do not already have a TV (and already have to pay the propaganda license you're likely never using). I can basically buy a TV and be forced to pay the regime for nothing or just use computer monitors and "save" enough money to buy a fancy new one each year. The choice seems obvious.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Putting OSes which wont be supported in a few years and apps which are there just for advertising the current generation of TVs into a device which easily lasts 5-10 years in nothing but planned obsolescence.
I tell you: Utterly Stupid and Easily Compromised Things is just the beginning of a long line of horrible problems. This is a fitting way to describe any "smart TV" older than 2 years and it even applies to new ones: They are not smart as Android or Entertainment devices and they never really were: The hardware they put into TVs to make them "smart" is usually worse than a $30 android tv box off e-pray.
My main concern with this is not televisions. It's the cars and other things like that. I've noticed that new cars now come with all sort of "smart" technology which can not be easily replaced. Cars used to have this standard hole where you'd put your car stereo. This had the interesting side-effect of car stereos becoming a very popular thing to steal. That aside, it was a good thing: There was a time where you could just buy basically any stereo and put it in any car. THIS is what I want for the "smart televisions" and the "smart refrigerators" and cars and everything. If you car/tv/whatever is 3 years old and your "smart" thing is slow then just rip it out and put a new one in and done. Will they give us such a standard? No way, not unless the big corporations are forced to buy some bigger over-national corporation like the EU.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
USB networking sucks does not have the bandwidth for dual 100meg much less dual gig-e. Also lot's of cpu overhead.
If you are talking about the BBC tax, in Spain we got rid of it long before joining the EU, and it never come back.
As far as I know, the only reason you have to pay an extra for your TV is because you are british.
First, there is nothing fascist about most EU countries and certainly not about the EU itself.
:)
And no, it's not everywhere you pay a TV licence, here in The Netherlands it was scrapped years ago and the money for the public broadcasters is now coming from the state budget.
As has been said for so long, checking on the licences was expensive and virtually everyone watches TV anyway.
Now, I believe a lot of people will agree with me that the BBC is doing a damn good job with the rather high licence money they get, keep it up
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
The real story here is Windows 10 fits into 32GB. Given the exponential rate of bloating, I was expecting it to have ballooned into the hundreds of GB. I guess even Microsoft have some limit to the mess they make.
The very concept behind Itanium - VLIW - while good for Comp Sci textbooks, was a horrible one from a market POV. In VLIW, since everything rests w/ the compiler, every change in generation breaks compatibility - whether it's adding more registers, more pipelines, more ALUs... In addition to all the maintenance work that they have to do on their software, every ISV would have to issue new updates to their software everytime Intel came up w/ a new CPU. In short, even someone who bit the bullet and adapted Itanium would see his efforts wiped out the moment the next rev of silicon came along. A really inane business model - surprised that neither HP nor Intel missed that elephant in the room.
Of course, that was Merced - Itanium I. Since then, Itanium II and III have adapted more RISC like techniques - like register renaming, as well as going w/ Intel's core model, which pretty much makes redundant the point of VLIW in the first place. Of course, that wouldn't by itself have killed the competing RISC platforms had it happened from the start, and it would have done squat in terms of the advantages that AMD64 had.