How Does the CoreHT Server Perform?

Application performance remains similar to the CoreHT 252B, with the major difference coming in hard drive-specific benchmarks.

Futuremark PCMark Vantage

x264 Encoding—Pass 1

x264 Encoding—Pass 2

For example, look at our WinRAR test, where we estimate how well WinRAR performs, particularly with respect to processing split archives. To evaluate this, we take a 4.36 GB MKV file, compress it in the 'Best' compression mode into a split archive (97.1 MB each), which results in 44 files on the hard disk. The time taken to decompress this split archive is then recorded. The performance in this benchmark is heavily influenced by the hard disk in the system.

WinRAR Benchmarking

In this test, the Server soundly beats the 252B as well as the older Core 100 model. The other possibility here is to reconfigure the hard drives in RAID 1, although performance would decrease.

ASRock CoreHT Server Edition - Internals ASRock CoreHT Server Edition - Heat and Power
POST A COMMENT

44 Comments

View All Comments

  • Bejusek - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - link

    I admit that 1TB is scarce, but 18TB is a bit of overkill for me. Your words only confirm my opinion that 'server edition' is a joke. Reply
  • Metaluna - Friday, February 17, 2012 - link

    Not just 1TB, but 1TB in Raid 0. As in, even less reliable than a single 1TB drive, just to gain a bit of performance that has questionable benefit in a small file server anyway. In other words, they don't get it.

    The name is probably just marketing, to align it with the Mac Mini Server, which also has two hard drives.
    Reply
  • faizoff - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - link

    The idle CPU temp seems a bit high though honestly I don't know the expected standard for HTPCs. My i5 2500k idles at 29-32 C, I'd always assumed HTPCs idle at around the same or less. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - link

    Considering that this temp does not negatively affect anything (like performance, life span etc.) it is really not interesting. They probably made the decision to go with more lenient fan controls. Nothing wrong with that. :-) Reply
  • faizoff - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - link

    Well it was interesting to me since at idle in an HTPC there are a lot less resources running when compared to a desktop. Plus I always thought they would consume less power and generate less heat when compared to a desktop.

    Just some assumptions I formed I guess.
    Reply
  • Death666Angel - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - link

    Less power and therefore less heat, sure. But also small enclosure, smaller heatsinks, smaller fans etc. Those things go together, so just less heat doesn't mean lower temps. Just look at small notebooks with 35W CPUs, they regularly have higher temps than 95W desktop CPUs. :-) Reply
  • duploxxx - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - link

    From the first review it was already clear that the Intel onboard GPU is just not up to the task to fully utilize where a HTPC is build for, this update doesn't change anything, hence even don't understand why bother to review again, There are other platforms much better suited then this. On top of that why bother with those few benchmarks, the cpu is know for a long time, these benchmarks are no real added value. Reply
  • Scannall - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - link

    Without a way to put better graphics in it, I am wondering why they didn't go with a mobile Llano CPU instead. Reply
  • queequeg99 - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - link

    Maybe they're thinking that heavy duty transcoding is more important than casual gaming for the intended audience. I ran into the same choice a few months ago. Fortunately, all of my video files are in a single format and no transcoding is necessary with the software I use. However, I would like the ability to play the occasional game of Portal. The A8-3850 works perfectly for that purpose. Reply
  • capeconsultant - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - link

    What is up with that? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now