HYSTOU FMP03, a mini PC with a Core-I3-5010U processor

Some time ago, I posted a review of a mini PC based on the Celeron J1900. In that review, I mentioned more powerful “siblings” based on I3 and I5 processors, which have a few design “quirks” of their own. After keeping an eye on how the Onda M2 was performing, I finally decided to replace my old computer with something more compact and more powerful.
In this review, I’ll try to show why I chose this particular option and what it’s all about.

A small note: the link goes to the version of the computer with a Core-I3-5005U processor, while the one in this review has a Core-I3-5010U. I don’t know why, but the store has now removed one from sale and replaced it with the other. The difference between them is very small, so I titled the review to match the model I have.

My computer had already had a bit of an “upgrade” a couple of years ago. And, let’s just say, I don’t change the “hardware” in the box under my desk very often.
My first computer was a laptop, but that doesn’t count, since it was something very ancient, with a 486DX2, 4 MB of RAM, 512 KB of video memory, and an 810 MB hard drive.

My move to a regular desktop computer began with a right-hand-side case from Daewoo, with an Astec power supply (a great case and PSU), plus a motherboard (if I remember correctly, it was a Gigabyte) with an 810 chipset and a 433 MHz Celeron processor. After a while, I sold it and bought myself more “advanced” hardware: a Chaintech 6OJV2 motherboard with an 815 chipset, and an 800 MHz Celeron processor that ran perfectly on a 133 MHz bus at 1066 MHz.
That setup served me for several years, then it was all sold (though I kept the processor) and the computer “moved” into a new case. I bought an Albatron 865pro motherboard with the infamous 865 chipset, a Celeron 2.0, and then almost immediately a 2.13 GHz model. This configuration ran for 10 years, almost to the day, around the clock.
Two years ago, I finally replaced the motherboard and processor with something a little more modern, with a Core 2 Duo E7500.
But somehow it just doesn’t have a “soul”—that warmth that came from the old Prescott, keeping me warm on long winter evenings. Computers have turned into soulless hunks of metal :(

So I decided to get rid of the old, large case, which had served me for just under 15 years (it doesn’t even have USB ports on the front), and try something newer.

My current setup is: Core 2 Duo E7500, 4 GB of RAM, GeForce 210, Creative Live 5.1, TV tuner, USB 3.0 controller, two 2 TB hard drives. The CD and DVD drives have long since just been covering the holes in the case. Windows XP SP3 (installed on 06.10.2007). I think that’s everything.

You’re probably wondering how such a modest setup served me for so many years.
The answer is simple: it was more than enough for me. But progress doesn’t stand still, and sooner or later I would have had to do this anyway. The situation is complicated by the fact that I have some peripherals that aren’t very compatible with newer hardware and operating systems.

But enough reminiscing; let’s get to the subject of this review.
The store offers three options, differing only in the processor.
CORE-I3-4010U
CORE-I3-5005U
CORE-I5-4200U

Why did I choose the CORE-I3-5005U (5010) rather than the supposedly more powerful CORE-I5-4200U?
The thing is, these processors are roughly equal in performance, while the integrated graphics in the 5010 are actually more powerful. The 5010 is also made using a smaller process and consumes less power (and therefore dissipates less heat), making it a better choice not only in terms of price, but also reliability and heat output.

Technical specifications for this computer, although technically it’s a “barebones kit.”
And here are the specs.
Operating system: Not installed
Processor: ICORE-I3-5005U (5010U)
Graphics: Intel® HD Graphics
Memory: up to 16 GB, SODIMM DDR3L, 2 slots, not installed by default
SATA — 2 x SATA 6 Gbps + 1 x mSATA
Wireless: 802.11b/g/n WiFi 2.4GHz
LAN — Gigabit LAN
Video outputs: HDMI and VGA
External interfaces: 4x USB 3.0, 2x USB 2.0
Audio output — 3.5 mm jack
Audio input — 3.5 mm jack
Dimensions: 198 x 198 x 37 (excluding feet, antenna, and connectors)
Weight: 1250 g

The computer arrived in a fairly nice box with attractive printing showing other models made by the manufacturer.


Everything is packed in foam to protect it from damage. The packaging also has a carrying handle, which is quite handy, but pointless for parcels from China.


The complete package looks like this:
1. HYSTOU FMP03 mini PC
2. Power supply + power cable
3. 2 Wi-Fi antennas
4. Stand for vertical installation
5. Mounting hardware
6. Manual
7. Driver disc
8. Manufacturer's business card.


A little more about what's included.
1. The manual is very general and fairly generic. In my opinion, anyone buying a device like this has at least some experience, so they don't need a manual.
2. The driver disc isn't branded; it's just burned onto a regular blank disc. The business card is just a business card.
3. Two antennas and the mounting hardware come in a separate bag.
4. Stand for vertical installation. The stand itself is fine, but its white color clashes noticeably with the overall look of the device.


The power supply and cable have the familiar plug we use, which is a plus. But the power cable has no ground and uses a rather uncommon connector to plug into the power supply.
Why they didn't use the usual “computer” power cable is a mystery.


The power supply looks a lot like a branded unit that's been relabeled.
The identical labels on both sides of the power supply give it away—and for some reason, they even say Motorola. Usually there's just one label on the bottom. Why stick on two?
The power supply's rated output is 12 V, 3 A.


As you can imagine, I couldn't resist taking this power supply apart. I'm not used to trusting the power for important equipment to some unknown unit. But I'll hide the teardown under a spoiler.

Now it’s time to show you the subject of the review itself.
There was a protective film stuck on top. I wouldn’t call it small, at least compared with the computers I’ve reviewed before.


Someone is bound to say, “That’s just the manufacturer’s name.”
Yes, exactly. Most likely, some OEM company makes these computers and then sells them under different brand names.
Actually, no—it’s even simpler. There are no markings on the computer at all; only the ports are labeled.
Order these little boxes from one company, cardboard packaging from another, burn the driver discs at home, and there you have a new brand :)
The whole situation with so many products reminds me of a quote from a very famous movie:
“Georgy Ivanovich, aka Goga, aka Gosha, aka Yuri, aka Gora, aka Zhora” :)

But it definitely looks great. I’m a fan of minimalist design, so I’m all for this look. The front panel has just a power button and a small hole for an LED.
The computer’s case is made entirely of aluminum, and the top is one large, solid heatsink.




As I mentioned above, the front has a power button (also metal) and a small hole.
The right side has two USB 2.0 ports, ventilation slots, and connectors for Wi-Fi antennas.


All the other ports are on the rear panel.
1. Microphone input.
2. Line-level audio output
3. Four USB 3.0 ports
4. Ethernet port
5. VGA video output
6. HDMI video output
7. 12 V power input.


All the ports in one photo.


The bottom cover wasn’t even screwed on. And really, why bother if you’re going to open it anyway? :)
There are no manufacturer markings on the bottom either, but I did find holes for mounting a VESA bracket. Unfortunately, it’s only available as an option, and I have no idea where to buy one.
There are also four rubber feet on the bottom. They’re fairly soft, and given the computer’s weight, they hardly slide at all. Actually, they don’t slide at all—the computer is very hard to move across a desk.


Fully assembled, the design looks something like this.
The downside is that the heatsink fins are horizontal in this position, which is less effective for cooling.


But the stand is well designed. There are ventilation holes on the bottom, and when the computer is placed on the stand, there is still a gap between the desk and the holes.


Since this computer comes as a bare-bones kit—that is, you have to install the hard drive and memory yourself—there's no getting around taking it apart. But naturally, I'll be taking it apart further than is strictly necessary just to install the missing components.

Let's remove the bottom cover. There's more room inside than you might think at first; the motherboard is very small, but uses a non-standard form factor.


I'll hide the rest of the internal tour behind a spoiler, since there are a lot of photos.

Before continuing with the assembly and testing, I want to take a closer look at this computer's BIOS settings.
First, some general information. The BIOS is very recent, dated early March this year, which is pretty good considering there haven't been any updates.


The remaining settings, with brief descriptions, are under the spoiler.

That's the inspection done; now we can get down to business.
For the tests that follow, I used the solid-state drive from my review—I bought it specifically for this computer.
I also tested it with a regular hard drive and a memory module I bought specifically for it. I initially planned to buy the memory in China, but changed my mind; it was easier to get it here.


First test: power consumption.
Since this computer was intended to be not only quiet but also low-power, this test is quite interesting.
First, I checked it at the desktop. I never turn the computer off, but since I'm not always working at it, I was curious how much power it uses in this state.
With the solid-state drive, it was about 12 W; with a regular hard drive, 2 W more. That's pretty much what you'd expect: an SSD uses very little power when idle, unlike a regular hard drive.


The maximum power consumption I recorded was 35 W.
These figures are for the whole system, including the power supply. They also include the regular hard drive and WiFi connected (I ran the tests before taking it apart), which I think is very good.
The second photo shows the mysterious front-panel board, where you can see that the LEDs shine everywhere except where they're supposed to :)


I'll occasionally compare it with my old computer from here on, starting with power consumption.
Here are my results:
1. At idle.
2. With the processor under maximum load
3. During the 3DMark test
4. Peak value across all tests


They included some hardware for the final assembly, but the selection was a bit unusual.
There were four short screws, three long ones, and one with a completely different diameter. I used three of the short ones for the hard drive (and they were quite hard to screw in).




Three long screws and one short one for assembling the case.
I didn't like that the drive presses against the bottom cover, blocking the ventilation holes.
I'll need to use longer screws and add spacers. I also have an idea to add another hard drive on top—once I find a suitable SATA cable :)
By the way, that's why I broke off the strip of circuit board.
Though it would probably be better to put the hard drive closer to the cover, with the SSD above it.


Now we can move on to examining the software and running some tests.
First, here’s the information from CPU-Z.
Searching for information about the motherboard turned up nothing, so it’s unclear where or by whom it was made.
The BIOS release date matches the date shown in the BIOS itself.


The memory is running at its rated 1600 MHz. Graphics: HD 5500.


AIDA, for some reason, disagrees about the BIOS release date and says it was released on April 21, 2014. Strange.


After installing the drivers from the included disc, I ran Intel's update utility. It only suggested updating the graphics driver.
By the way, I had to download the Wi-Fi driver separately; there were some issues with the one that came on the disc.


A test of the SATA ports' speed. I already ran it in my review of this SSD, but repeated it just to be sure.


Next, I tested Wi-Fi. I don't need it here, but decided to give it a try out of curiosity.
At first I was pleased with the number of visible access points, although there should have been a few more.


I got sidetracked by the test, though it would have made more sense to show the Wi-Fi adapter's capabilities first. Judging by the number of options, they're extensive.
Click to view the enlarged image.


But the overall performance was disappointing.
The first screenshot shows the router in the same room as the computer.
The second shows my regular router, installed far away behind a bunch of concrete walls.


Both connections were stable, but the speed in the first setup was really poor:
The connection was stable in both cases, but I expected better speed and range from an adapter with two full-size antennas. :(


Now we can run some temperature and performance tests.
I mentioned temperature before performance for a reason. Temperature testing matters more to me than performance testing: performance was more or less predictable, but temperatures can vary a lot from one setup to another.
First I ran LinX in x32 mode. Temperatures were low, but performance was too.


Then I ran the test in x64 mode. Performance improved.
The first test was run with the computer standing vertically.


After running the test for an hour, I turned the computer horizontally and ran the same test for another hour.
So far, I'm happy with the temperatures. Even after a test lasting more than two hours with the computer lying horizontally, the temperature never went above 78 degrees, which I consider a good result.
Perhaps the right choice of processor helped, since fourth-generation processors have a maximum TDP of 15 W, while fifth-generation ones are rated at 10 W, with roughly the same performance.
Intel's processor development strategy, “tick-tock,” in action: one step changes the core, the next shrinks the process, then we improve the core again.


And here's where my old computer fell behind: 14,000 in x32 mode versus 25,000 in x32 and 45,000 in x64 on the new one.


The most interesting thing is that the 3DMark test heated up the processor noticeably less than the math test. In my tests of Atom processors, I'm used to seeing the opposite.
Even so, the performance is very impressive.


My GeForce 210 was completely outclassed by the integrated graphics.


The Cinebench test heats up the processor even less, while once again showing decent performance, especially in graphics.
The graphics core is a strong point of fifth-generation processors, by the way—another reason I chose this one.


Once again, there's a significant difference compared with my computer.


Synthetic benchmarks are all well and good, but I was curious how big the difference would be when encoding video. Three things affect these tests: processor clock speed, number of cores, and graphics card.
I tried converting Full HD video from a camcorder to DivX, with panning and frame rotation enabled.


My computer got a very similar result. In both cases, the graphics card provided little acceleration, if any, but my old processor's clock speed made a difference: 2.9 GHz versus 2.1 GHz on the new one.


I didn't even check the temperature during these tests, since I didn't see the point. I ran them just to get some general benchmark results.
WinRAR.


7-Zip.


During testing, I took thermal images of this computer. I took a lot of photos at different stages and in different positions, but decided to show only the ones with the highest temperatures. If you need temperatures in other positions, I can add them.
My goal was to find out how hot the computer could get at most.
When taking a thermal image of the aluminum case, I stuck a small piece of black electrical tape on top (in the center of the case), but saw no difference in temperature.
Even under maximum sustained load in the horizontal position, the temperature is normal. The test was performed with the cover closed; afterward, I turned the computer over, removed the cover, and took a thermal image.


So, what can I say in conclusion? First, I'll list the pros and cons of this computer:
Pros
Good performance.
Decent build quality, although not without flaws.
Completely silent
No overheating, even under full sustained load
Supports up to 16 GB of RAM.
2 SATA + MicroSATA
A fairly decent power supply included.
Low power consumption.

Cons
The CPU mounting pressure could use a minor design improvement
Weak WiFi module
No Bluetooth (although WiFi wasn't listed in the specs to begin with)
A less common cable is needed to connect to the second SATA port
No software support in the form of BIOS updates

My opinion. Perhaps the most significant issue, and one that could be a deal-breaker, is that the CPU is held in place by the rigidity of the circuit board. I don't want to say it's all bad—I expected worse—but there is a flaw. You can modify it or leave it as is, but modifying it is the better option.
I was very pleased that it doesn't overheat and has low power consumption. The decent power supply was also a pleasant surprise, although I'd replace the capacitors branded Gluxon. But that's probably just nitpicking: there's plenty of capacitance, and the PSU can handle even the maximum load. The PSU case doesn't get very hot either, especially compared with laptop power supplies.
All in all, I was pleasantly surprised by the computer. Performance is decent, and it works well.

Logically, the next thing I should have shown was how I moved everything to the new computer and was happily typing up some review. But I can't boast about that just yet, as there are a few complications.
1. Get mentally prepared
2. I have two programmers connected to the COM and LPT ports, and I'll most likely have to replace them.
3. I use a Canon LBP-810 printer, which basically has no drivers for Windows x64. And I'd really like to upgrade the memory to 8, or maybe even 16 GB.
4. I don't even have a rough idea yet how to move everything from one OS to another, given that I installed XP 9 years ago. That means a ton of software, settings, the Outlook mail database, and so on.
5. I sometimes use a TV tuner, although lately I got the impression that I managed to fry it. I need to find a good USB replacement.
6. I have two 2 TB drives, and I need to figure out how to connect them to this computer. This is partly related to my network card review, since I'm now thinking of building a NAS somewhat differently than I had planned.
7. Get mentally prepared.

In other words, I need to sort out the issues listed above before I can “move over,” and I have a feeling it'll take a while :(

That's about it for now. I'll be glad to hear your questions and suggestions for tests.

As a bonus, I'm offering a copy of the original disc, a WiFi driver, and a discount coupon.

The product was provided by the store for review.