CHUWI HiBox, a small but unusual computer

And now a mini PC based on the new and yet already familiar x5-Z8350 SoC has landed in my hands.
It’s new because it was released relatively recently, and already familiar because processors based on this core have been in production for almost a year and a half.
I’ll say right away that this computer had a few surprises in store. But let’s take it one step at a time: we’ll inspect it, test it, open it up, and see if we can improve it.

I got the computer fairly recently, but as it turned out, I’ve already learned quite a lot about its quirks—some of them were new to me.
By and large, all the previous computers had mostly cosmetic differences and quirks rather than anything fundamental. This one, however, has some fairly noticeable differences, unfortunately not always for the better.

While testing and using the computer, I kept thinking of a poem by the famous Russian writer A. S. Pushkin.
Oh, how many wondrous discoveries
The spirit of enlightenment prepares for us,
And experience, the son of difficult mistakes,
And genius, the friend of paradoxes,
And chance, the god of invention...
No complaints about the packaging: it’s a fairly sturdy, almost cube-shaped box. There’s a brief list of the device’s specifications on the side.


Specifications.
Operating systems: Windows 10, Android 5
Processor: Intel Cherry Trail x5-Z8350
Graphics: Intel® Intel® HD Graphics 400
Memory: 4GB RAM + 64GB ROM
Wireless: 802.11b/g/n WiFi 2.4/5 GHz
Ethernet — 1000Mbit
Bluetooth: BT 4.0
Audio output — 3.5 mm audio jack
Display: HDMI output (CEC support claimed)
External interfaces: 2x USB 2.0 + 1x USB 3.0
Memory card support: 1 SD slot, max. 128 GB
Dimensions: 120 x 120 x 25 mm
Weight: 200 g

The x5-Z8350 SoC was actually announced back in February of last year, i.e. about a year ago, but devices based on it have only started appearing fairly recently. What’s more, it’s not entirely clear how this SoC differs from its predecessor, the 8300.

Let’s leave the processor renaming to the marketing people and take a closer look.
The first pleasant surprise was the packaging and what’s included.
The packaging consists of several separate boxes—in effect, a kind of Russian nesting doll.


Boxes, an envelope, little bags. Basically, they decided to get us interested before we even turned it on, since unboxing takes longer than usual.


The package is quite good. It’s hard to think of anything missing—perhaps only a driver disc.
1. CHUWI HiBox mini PC
2. Power supply
3. Remote control
4. HDMI cable
5. Monitor mounting bracket
6. Manual


The manual is in English and Chinese. The only part of real interest is the brief description of the connectors, though most users can figure them out anyway.


A little more about the accessories.
1. HDMI cable with “gold-plated” connectors.
2. VESA mount with two pairs of screws in different diameters.
3,4. Power supply with a European plug. It’s quite compact, with an output voltage of 12 V and current up to 2 A. It stays fairly cool even under maximum load.


Remote control.
It looks quite simple. Something was clearly rattling inside, and it turned out to be a radio remote with its USB receiver loose inside.
But things got much more interesting when I plugged it in: it turned out to be an air mouse. The feature is activated by pressing the button with the mouse icon. There aren't many buttons, but I was able to browse the internet quite comfortably without a keyboard or mouse. Interestingly, it was apparently originally an IR remote, whose functionality was later expanded.
All in all, a nice bonus.


The computer measures 120×120×25 mm, exactly the same as another member of the “Atom” family, the Beelink BT7. As it turned out, though, the similarities go beyond the dimensions.
This time the case is plastic. The finish looks a lot like soft-touch, but it's smoother and picks up fingerprints a bit, though it's nowhere near as glossy as some alternatives.


There's an opening on top for an LED. I tried to photograph it so it would show up, but eventually gave up on that hopeless endeavor. It's not very bright, but quite noticeable.


1. The front has a power button, a pair of USB ports, and an SD card slot.
2. On the right side (which is unusual, since the ports are normally on the back) are the power connector, a USB 3.0 port, an HDMI output, an Ethernet port, a 3.5 mm audio output, and a small hole behind which is the reset button.


The bottom has four rubber feet and a mounting point for a VESA bracket.


The bracket is extremely simple. Screw it to a monitor with VESA 80 or 100 mm mounting holes, then simply slide the computer onto the bracket.
The design is simple but well thought out: when mounted this way, some ports face sideways and others downward. This makes it less likely for dust to get into the ports. Also, in this position the heatsink works a little more efficiently, but more on that later.


When you turn on the computer, a welcome screen appears with a choice of operating systems to boot.
If you don't choose anything, the last OS used boots after 6 seconds.

A brief digression here. When testing, I usually use an HDMI-to-VGA converter because the second input on my monitor is VGA. I switch to the HDMI input only when I need to check that video output is working correctly. This test lets me quickly check whether a computer or TV box can work with the converter. In this case, though, that approach failed: this is the first computer I've come across that doesn't work with the converter.
What's more, it's the first computer that refuses to boot without a monitor. The monitor itself doesn't have to be turned on, but its cable must be connected to the computer.
At first I suspected the converter simply wasn't getting enough power. Strictly speaking, it's not supposed to power high-power devices, but other devices have no problem with it.
I later found that if you hot-swap the connectors after Windows has booted, the converter works without any problems.


Since I prefer Windows, that's the first one I tested.
Judging by the language selection menu, this is the OS's first boot. The Russian language pack was already installed, too: everything went smoothly without an internet connection, and I didn't have to download or configure anything.


Alongside the main shortcuts on the desktop, there’s also a little app for automatically rebooting Android.


Since the computer has two operating systems installed, the first thing I checked was how much of the 64 GB of flash storage was available in Windows. About 30 GB was free, and no updates had been installed.
Personally, I’d wipe everything and install Windows only. Still, I’ll have that thought again after testing Android. But that’s just my opinion, since Windows is more familiar to me.


The partitions, on the other hand, are the usual mess. There was a discussion in the comments once about Windows creating unnecessary partitions.
No, compared to this, I’d say it’s as pure and innocent as the driven snow :)


Windows was initially unactivated, and some of the tests were run in that state. A notification appeared on the desktop suggesting it might be a good idea to activate it.
Once connected to the internet, activation completed automatically. An antivirus scan found nothing “extra,” which suggests the installed OS is legitimate.


Technical information about the computer’s hardware.
I also ran a quick test here. I don’t have much CPU-Z test data yet, but in this case the result is slightly lower than that of the Celeron N3150 processor.


The second test checks the speed of the installed eMMC flash memory.
The result is average or slightly above average.


The main test was run in Crystal DiskMark version 5.


For comparison and to build up my test data, I usually compare all the computers I’ve tested. I started collecting data quite a while ago, so this test uses an earlier version of Crystal DiskMark. Some of the information is probably outdated by now, but data is data.
Computer under review
Beelink BT7
Pipo X10
Pipo X9
Pipo X7
Pipo X7S
MeeGoPad T02
Pocket P1
Vensmile W10
Teclast X98 Pro
MeeGoPad T03
Wintel Pro CX-W8


Since the average performance of computers based on Atom SoCs is fairly predictable and doesn’t vary much between systems with the same processor model, all my tests eventually boil down to testing the cooling system, since that’s what really determines performance.
First up is the 3DMark test. I got a score of about 2,800 points. Interestingly, the result was about 200 points lower in every subsequent test.
For comparison, earlier tests of other devices based on the 8300-series processor scored only 2,100–2,200 points, even with a modified cooling system. As far as I know, the GPU core is still the same, but the result is nevertheless an improvement.
For comparison, an 8700-series processor scored about 3,600 points in this test with a modified cooling system.


Cinebench doesn't have enough time to heat up the heatsink as much, so the result doesn't differ as much as it does in the more demanding tests.
The 8300 scores 7.28/1.18 here
and the 8700 scores 11.51/1.75, respectively.


The LinX test clearly shows the system heating up—or, more accurately, overheating, since the temperature entered the red zone.
You won't see throttling here, because the BIOS automatically lowers the processor frequency before it starts skipping clock cycles on its own.


And of course, the extreme tests. This time I didn't run the test in stages; I decided to load it to the max right away, as far as technically possible.
After three minutes, the temperature entered the red zone, but I noticed that the process took a relatively long time, which already points to a fairly substantial cooling system.


You can see that the temperature reached a certain point and then stopped rising; the BIOS began limiting the processor frequency.




Since this is a dual-boot computer, before opening it up and making modifications I decided to take at least a quick look at Android running on an Intel processor. The last time I did that was on a tablet with an Atom 8500.
We reboot and enter Android. On the first boot, I didn't have to enter anything; the computer loaded to the start screen, and then I switched to the desktop with one familiar mouse movement.
Speaking of the mouse, this is the first Android computer where my old A4tech mouse worked. None of the previous ones recognized it.


The preinstalled software is very sparse—just the basic apps. I see this as both a plus and a minus. Some people prefer having everything installed, while others would rather not have to remove anything.
At the bottom you can see a panel with icons for controls, volume adjustment, and power off.
In the screenshots that follow, this part will be cropped out, but the panel is always there. I never did find a way to disable or hide it.


It runs Android 5.1.


There's not much free space allocated to Android. As far as I can tell, it's about 10 GB; most of the flash memory has been allocated to Windows.


The control panel is mostly the same as on tablets, with the standard Android settings.


There are a few small differences, though, such as a video enhancement setting related to the processor being used.


HDMI output settings.








While I was looking through the various settings, an update popped up. I installed it as soon as it was offered, so all the tests were run with the new firmware.


CPU-Z didn't reveal anything new, except that it showed there was no root access.




ES File Explorer is installed as the file manager. It's a very handy app, especially for accessing resources on your home network. It also has gesture controls, though I think that's a bit much.


Now for a few performance tests.
AnTuTu 5.1
If this were a TV box with some Amlogic chip, I'd say this was excellent. But this device is noticeably more powerful on its own, and more expensive too, so I'll call it good.




AnTuTu version 6 shows performance about 1.6 times higher than the Amlogic S912, which is pretty good.
That's partly thanks to the fairly powerful processor, and partly to the 4 GB of RAM on board—a rarity in Android devices, and even more so in TV boxes.




3DMark gives a rather low score. I suspect the test software isn't working correctly.


PCMark scored over 5,300 points, which is pretty good. At least the S912, with its 3,200, is left in the dust for now.


In GeekBench 3, single-threaded performance is higher, while multithreaded performance is lower. This may be because the S912 is an eight-core processor, so it wins through core count rather than per-core performance. Its heat output is also in a different league, though: the S912 is much more power-efficient.


The version 4 results are noticeably different: in single-threaded mode, the Atom scored more than twice as high, while there is almost no difference in multithreaded mode.


The Compute test, on the other hand, didn't work at all. Near the end, the software reports that something is wrong and returns a score of zero.


eMMC performance is comparable to that of other TV boxes, which is hardly surprising since they use similar chips.
In the RAM speed test, this computer fell slightly behind boxes based on the Amlogic S912.


Multimedia on Android.
It's not as good here as on the Amlogic boxes we've grown used to: noticeably fewer video formats are supported out of the box, some formats wouldn't play at all, and KODI isn't installed by default.
So if you want to use this computer to watch videos, I'd recommend looking for alternative software or watching movies in Windows, also with alternative software, since out of the box you only get the stock media player.

One nice thing was that even though the desktop initially didn't quite fill the monitor screen, video playback was pixel-perfect.


I didn't monitor the temperature in Android, since it's more convenient for me to do that in Windows, and I didn't like what I saw there. So while inspecting the internals, I also made a small improvement to the cooling.
But first, let's take a look inside.
To open the case, you first need to peel off the four rubber feet, which conceal the screws. Yes, actual screws, not the usual self-tapping ones. Chuwi has surprised me with its originality again.


Next, run something flat, like a discount card, around the perimeter and open the little box. I really don't understand why a case that's screwed together needs clips at all.


My first thought was, “Well, look at all these familiar faces.”
Yes, on the outside it looks almost exactly like the Beelink BT7 mini PC.
“Almost” because this one is missing at least:
1. A fan
2. An M.2 connector and its controller
3. An external WiFi antenna
4. It has only one USB 3.0 port.


The WiFi antenna is a small board, but it's connected via a connector, which is a big plus: you can easily connect an external antenna this way. This is also the first time I've seen this solution in a Chinese computer; usually the antenna is simply glued in place.


Near the very beginning, I mentioned that the box would get slightly better cooling when mounted behind a monitor. This is partly because the heatsink fins would be vertical in that setup. Of course, it’s nowhere near as good as the BT7 with its active cooling, but even that one needed some cooling modifications.
In general, Chinese-designed mini PCs suffer from poorly designed cooling systems in 90% of cases. They could have two fans, but if all the ventilation openings are blocked off, they’ll still overheat.


There’s a metal shield on the underside of the circuit board, which also serves as a small heatsink.


Under the shield are Toshiba flash memory and a pair of SK hynix RAM chips. You can also see a piece of thermal pad here, but the developers managed to make things complicated here too. More on that later—I’m getting ahead of myself.


There’s also a battery on the underside (I really wish TV boxes had one) and a couple of power regulator chips.


The case is well thought out, the board is secured with screws, and the overall construction is neat.


Let’s remove the heatsink. No trouble at all here: four small screws and it’s off. With the Beelink, I had to struggle quite a bit to undo the screws without stripping their heads.


Looking at the heatsink, I can say that Chinese developers are learning from their mistakes after all. There’s a raised section on the underside of the heatsink, over the processor, so there’s no need for a thick thermal pad. I had to add a strip of brass to the BT7.


The original thermal pad is only 0.5 mm thick. Just a little more progress and they might get rid of it altogether (I hope).


But let’s take a quick look at what’s inside this mini PC.
In practice, Chinese manufacturers tend to use the same components in most of their devices, and this one is no exception.
1. Atom 8350 processor (SoC).
2. Two more RAM chips.
3. Power management chip, used in almost all mini PCs and tablets with Atom processors.
4. Memory chip for storing the BIOS firmware.


1. Wireless networking is handled by the AP6234, a fairly well-known module that operates in the 2.4/5 GHz bands.
2. Wired networking is handled by a Realtek chip, the RTL8111G, which supports connection speeds of up to 1 Gbps.
3. ES8316 handles analog audio output. It's ordinary budget audio; I can't say anything good about it, but then again, nothing bad either.
4. One of the PWM controllers is located near the power connector. The Beelink BT7 has the same chip in the same spot, although the board itself is noticeably different.


There is some basic protection and filtering near the HDMI and USB ports.


The side looks similar to the Beelink, but the connectors are more basic, and the USB ports are 2.0; the BT7 had USB 3.0.
There is also some unused space, but on the BT7 it was presumably for a SIM card, whereas here there's clearly room for a MicroUSB connector.


The difference here is very noticeable. The Beelink had a controller and an M.2 connector for an SSD, while this one has a connector of unknown purpose. It might be USB, but I can't say for sure.


We opened it up not just to take a look, but also to make a small modification.
I noticed that the thermal pad was quite heavily compressed by the heatsink, so I decided to replace it with thermal paste.
For the first attempt, I simply removed the pad and applied thermal paste, then pressed the heatsink and boards firmly together and screwed the heatsink back on.


As I mentioned above, Chinese developers (or the manufacturer) will always find a way to get something wrong.
There's a shield on the underside of the board, which is supposed to act as a heatsink, as suggested by the small piece of thermal pad.
But the pad should make contact with metal, not with the film, which clearly conducts heat less effectively. And what's more, the film is even cut away where it needs to be!
So I scrape off the film, muttering about the developers, the manufacturer, and their relatives as I go. Then I remove the remaining adhesive with a cotton ball and some alcohol.


Let's run a few tests. First, Cinebench.
The difference is almost zero: 3D performance is slightly better, while the math test is virtually unchanged.


All right, let's run LinX.
The results are a little better here. It still overheats, but that happens a bit later, and performance at the end of the test hasn't dropped as much as it did with the original setup.


But 3DMark showed the opposite: the score was slightly worse than before. I should say, though, that this result was seen in almost all subsequent tests, which showed slightly better performance right at the start. I don't know; perhaps the computer wasn't connected to the internet yet at the time.


The nearly hour-long test at maximum load went just as before: the temperature got very high, but there were no problems.


I wasn't very happy with this result. I expected more, so I set about reworking the cooling once again.
For the upgrade, I used the aluminum foil that static-sensitive chips are wrapped in. This foil is thick but soft. I flattened it out and cut two small squares. With one square, the heatsink sat flush; with two, it was a little thicker than necessary, but I decided that would be better.
The result was a sort of sandwich: two layers of foil with three layers of KPT-19 thermal paste between them.
The result was a pleasant surprise: the LinX test showed good performance and no overheating. To be honest, I didn't expect such a big difference.


But then came a nasty surprise: when I ran extreme tests, the computer shut down. It didn't matter whether I was testing the power supply or just running the “donut” test.
It took me a while to figure out what was happening. For convenience, I'd connected the computer to the network and was controlling everything with Radmin. So I'd start a test and go about my business. About 40 minutes later, I'd check in, and the computer wouldn't respond; the case was cold.
All right, I'd check again, then again, and the same thing kept happening with remarkable consistency.
Finally, I connected a monitor and tried the test again. At 77 degrees, Windows automatically shut down. O_O
My first thought was, “Wait, how can that be?” I started the test again: three minutes later, the temperature reached 77 degrees, and the computer shut down. No blue screens, everything closed properly, and the computer powered off.


Well, I thought, I'll go into the BIOS and make some “adjustments,” like I did before. Then came another blow, the one that finally broke me: the BIOS had no advanced settings whatsoever. None. To say I was shocked would be an understatement. :(


In the end, the computer and I settled on a “compromise”: one piece of foil and two layers of thermal paste.


With this setup, the extreme test runs without problems. I didn't run it for long, since I just wanted to see when it crossed point X—that is, reached 77 degrees. Though I suspect the actual threshold is 75 or 80.


In LinX, the temperature climbs into the red zone again, while performance remains almost stable.
Throughout the tests, the computer kept “getting in my way” by launching various background processes, like trying to update itself, scan for viruses, and so on, so the test results fluctuate a bit.


A little about the network adapters.
Wired connection. The WOL setting is visible, but the feature isn't actually supported.


Wireless connection. There are quite a lot of settings, which may come in handy.


And of course, a quick WiFi test.
First, I tried it at my desk, the spot farthest from the router.
I immediately noticed that the computer didn’t “see” many access points nearby. After a little while, the number reached 21, although the screenshot shows 19. In reality, a sensitive receiver in this spot can pick up signals from around fifty routers.
In any case, I could see my router, which was operating on the 5 GHz band. The screenshot shows that mine was the only equipment operating at 5 GHz.


I couldn’t connect to either the 2.4 GHz or the 5 GHz access point.


As a test, I checked the speed in three different setups:
1. 2.4 GHz router in the same room as the computer
2. 2.4 GHz router one meter from the computer
3. 5 GHz router in the next room, with no direct line of sight because of a concrete wall (20 cm load-bearing concrete + 20 cm foam concrete with steel mesh).


Now I can draw some conclusions, and this time there are quite a few.
Pros
Neat assembly and good packaging.
Includes a remote with air mouse functionality and a VESA mount.
4 GB of RAM and 64 GB of flash storage.
Two operating systems (though personally, I’m not sure that’s an advantage).
No problems localizing Windows into Russian.
Windows activates without any problems.
Decent performance.
5 GHz band support.
Gigabit network adapter.
USB 3.0 port, although that’s standard these days.

Cons
The computer can’t be turned on without a monitor.
The HDMI-to-VGA converter can only be connected after the OS has booted.
WiFi sensitivity isn’t very good.
The cooling can be modified, but there’s no way to take advantage of that.
Only three USB ports. That was enough for me, but I wouldn’t have minded a fourth.
Almost no BIOS settings.
It does get hot—too hot, in fact.
Not all software works on Android. For example, I couldn’t run the AnTuTu Video test or Epic Citadel.

My take: this computer managed to surprise me quite a bit. Not with how well or poorly it worked, but with the number of quirks that set it apart from other computers. During testing, I found that this was the first computer I’d come across that wouldn’t work without a monitor, or with an HDMI-to-VGA converter; its BIOS offers almost no settings, and improving the cooling makes it shut down.
I have a strong suspicion that the BIOS quirk described in this review will soon become commonplace, since computers are often very similar to one another, as I also explained in the review.
There’s a fairly large heatsink inside, but even it can’t dissipate all the heat because the case is plastic. However, standing the computer vertically noticeably lowers the temperature.
I was pleased to see the VESA mount and air mouse included. I should also mention the quite respectable performance, especially with enough RAM for modern applications. The 64 GB of flash storage is also a nice touch, but keep in mind that it’s shared between the two operating systems. For example, I’d remove Android and keep only Windows, but I’d need to think about saving the drivers first so I don’t end up in a difficult situation.
To add more storage, you can use the memory card slot or connect an external hard drive to the USB 3.0 port.

All in all, I can say that despite the drawbacks listed above, this is a pretty good computer for $130. Some of that price goes toward the air mouse, which may be useful for certain applications. If you use it as a media player with computer functionality, its performance and cooling will be adequate.

That’s about it. I didn’t run many tests because I got sidetracked by the cooling system and experiments with it. As always, I look forward to your questions in the comments.

P.S. I bought the computer legally, for the price listed in the title.