Vorke V1 Plus Mini PC or the New Version

Last fall, I posted a review of the interesting Vorke V1 mini PC. It’s a pretty good machine: fast, doesn’t overheat, and lets you install a hard drive. An updated version with an Apollo Lake J3455 processor recently appeared on the market, so I got interested, ordered one, and wrote a review. Of course, the review includes an inspection, tests, a teardown, and a comparison with the previous version.



While writing the review, I decided not to set aside a separate section for the comparison, but to compare specific details as I went along. I’ll just say that there turned out to be a lot more differences than I expected.

Specifications
Operating system: Windows 10
Processor: Intel Celeron "Apollo Lake" J3455 1.5 GHz (2.3 GHz in turbo mode)
Graphics: Intel HD Graphics 500
Memory: 4 GB
SATA — 1 x SATA 3 Gbps + 1 x mSATA (64 GB SSD installed)
Internal interfaces — 1 x M.2
LAN — Gigabit LAN
Wi-Fi — 2.4/5 GHz
Bluetooth 4.0
Video outputs: HDMI and VGA
External interfaces: 2x USB 3.0, 2x USB 2.0
Audio output — 3.5 mm jack
Dimensions: 153 x 153 x 38
Weight: 390 g

First, the packaging. It’s the same as before: a large, sturdy cardboard box containing the computer itself and all the accessories.


Everything that comes with the computer is basically tossed together and can move around freely inside during shipping, but nothing was damaged along the way.


The package contents are identical to the previous version and include:
1. Mini PC
2. Power supply
3. Power cable
4. Mounting bracket for an HDD/SSD
5. Manual.

The cover image was picked up from the store page, which says an HDMI cable is included. There wasn’t one in my package, so you’ll need to check.
There’s also an expanded package that includes a VESA mount; that option costs $9 more.


The manual is quite detailed. For example, in addition to the basic information, it includes instructions for installing Ubuntu.
The power cable has a European plug at one end and a three-pin connector at the other, like the ones used on laptops. It’s not the best choice, since these cables are less common than the familiar "computer" power cables.
The HDD/SSD mounting bracket was slightly damaged in transit, but nothing serious. The metal is soft, so it’s easy to bend it back into shape.
The power supply is quite compact. Its rated output is 12 V, 3 A. It doesn’t overheat, even with a hard drive installed and the system under full load.


At first glance, there’s nothing different: the same square black box. It was only later that I realized what was missing :)
This time the case is matte rather than glossy, and the developers deserve a big thank-you for that. I don’t know why they went with a glossy finish last time, but matte is much better.


The number and placement of the connectors are unchanged. On the front are two USB 2.0 ports, a microSD card reader, and an IR receiver window for the remote control. I tried again to figure out which remote works with this computer, but still couldn’t work out what kind it needs.
The power button is on top and has an LED indicator. It’s off when the computer is off and lights up when it’s on, but not very brightly. In sleep mode, it fades in and out. The button is made of some kind of dense rubber, and its large size makes it easy to find even in the dark.


On the back are:
1. Power connector
2. HDMI output
3. VGA output
4. Ethernet port
5. Two USB 3.0 ports
6. 3.5 mm analog audio input/output jack.


There are ventilation openings on the left and right. Most of them are covered by an additional fine mesh, except where the hot air is expelled.


There are two large rubber "feet" on the bottom, and most of the bottom cover is removable to make it easier to install a hard drive.


Before turning it on, I went into the computer’s BIOS. Sorry the screenshots came out so small; click on an image to enlarge it.
There are a lot of settings—really a lot. Lately, I’ve been seeing more and more computers with a locked-down BIOS: you can still choose what to boot from, but most of the other settings are hidden.
In any case, it’s best not to change anything you don’t need to. Sometimes you can get an unpleasant surprise and end up "bricking" the device.


The only setting I couldn’t find was the option to power on automatically when power is applied.


On first startup, you’re prompted to choose a language, country, and so on. Next, as usual, it prompts you to connect to one of the Wi-Fi access points. Since mine wasn't listed, I skipped this step—but I shouldn't have; I should at least have connected an Ethernet cable.
After a short wait, the computer boots up.


I didn't connect to the internet during the initial setup, and later ran into a problem: I couldn't install Russian. Sometimes the language pack is already included in the system; other times you have to download it separately from the language settings menu. In this case, though, the computer stubbornly insisted there was no internet, even though I could easily open a browser and look for a solution to the problem.
It turned out to be much easier and faster to roll the OS back to its original state and start over with the internet already connected. After that, the option to download the language pack became available, and there were no further problems.


Windows activated without any problems; it happened automatically both times.
Windows 10 Home is installed, which is more than enough for most uses.


As with the previous model, it comes with a 64 GB SSD. Some of that is taken up by the system, leaving only about 47 GB free.


I won't go through Task Manager and the graphics card settings as I did last time, since there's nothing particularly interesting there.
Even the network cards are exactly the same: Intel Wi-Fi at 2.4/5 GHz and a gigabit wired Realtek adapter.


A quick look at the CPU-Z information. As stated in the description, it has an Intel Celeron J3455 processor (SoC) based on the currently popular Apollo Lake core. The previous model had a Celeron J3160 based on Braswell. The new chip's base clock is slightly lower, 1.5 GHz versus 1.6, but its Turbo clock is higher: 2.3 versus 2.24 GHz.
The BIOS is from AMI, dated mid-May 2017. As I said, there won't be any updates, so it's better if the BIOS is new to begin with.
I also ran the first benchmarks here, first with version 1.79 and then with 1.77. I use version 1.77 to make it easier to compare with previously tested devices. In this case, the difference is quite large: 687/2510 for the new model versus 332/1267 for the previous one. So, according to CPU-Z, the new model is at least twice as fast.


As with the previous model, the manufacturer used an SSD from Foresee. I'll say right away that I'm skeptical of this company's drives, mainly because of the tarnished reputation of its flash memory. It's usually quite slow, and there have been concerns about its reliability.


Although the SSD looks the same at first glance, its speed says otherwise. The previous version used a faster drive: 490/150 MB/s versus 374/85 MB/s in the new model. The read speeds aren't all that different, but the nearly twofold difference in write speed was disappointing.


Write speed doesn't depend on the size of the file being written and stays at 85–90 MB/s.
Just to be clear, all the SSD tests were run on a drive that was already full. Sometimes I had to delete other test programs to free up space for a test.


As with the previous model, the computer supports installing a hard drive, which is a nice and convenient feature. For this test, I used the same 500 GB, 7200 RPM drive.


Installation is very simple: first, attach the bracket with four screws.
Then unscrew the retaining screw on the bottom of the case and turn the round section to unlock it. All the necessary instructions are printed on the case.
Install the drive as shown in the photo and secure it with the extra screw, which is also included.
Close the case cover by reversing the steps. That's it.

The only thing to note is that 2.5-inch hard drives come in different thicknesses: 5, 7, 9.5 mm and more. I used a 9.5 mm drive, and it was a very tight fit. I managed to close the case, but it was clearly right up against the limit, so I recommend using 7 mm drives.


Here I ran an overall test comparing different storage options.
1. The original SSD.
2. A hard drive connected via SATA
3. A microSD card in the built-in card reader
4. A hard drive connected via USB 3.0

The card reader is quite slow. For the test, I used a card with a maximum read speed of 90 MB/s. The hard drive tests, on the other hand, were limited by the drive's own performance: the results were identical whether it was connected via SATA or USB 3.0.


The first test was Cinebench, and it immediately produced some rather strange results. If the result was somewhat predictable in terms of raw computing performance, the graphics performance was a bit disappointing.


Since I wasn't happy with the result, I decided to update the drivers and downloaded Intel's utility. It found updated graphics drivers, which were exactly what I was looking for.
I downloaded and installed them without any problems, and ran the remaining tests with the new driver.


Now that's a much better result, roughly twice as high as in the previous test. So updating the drivers is a must—the stock ones are really weak when it comes to 3D.
I'll put the final results together in a table later, to make it easier to see “who's who.”


I didn't run this performance test on the previous model, so I can't compare the results and am including it for reference only. I can say, though, that the Celeron N3450 scored 924 points in this test, while the Pentium N4200 scored a little higher at 1088. The result here is clearly higher, even though all the processors are based on the same core.


Next, a couple of 3DMark tests. First, the 2006 version. Here, the result is also better than on the previous model, and noticeably so.


I didn't run the new version of 3DMark on the previous model, but I did run it on the N4200—317|329—and on the N3450—281.


I don't run this test often, but since I've been asked to do it several times, I decided to include it here. This is the WinRAR performance test.


The Wi-Fi module is the same one as last time, but I decided to test it anyway.
The scan found 32 access points, including my own 2.4 and 5 GHz networks. The only 5 GHz network it found was mine. Still, I've said more than once that Intel modules aren't known for their high sensitivity.


Unfortunately, although the computer could “see” my access point, it refused to connect. This usually means the signal is weak.
I had to test it in two stages: first, three tests in the same room as the 2.4 GHz router, at different spots in the room (1.5 meters and 0.5 m away), then a couple of tests with the 5 GHz router a few meters from the computer, but out of direct line of sight.
The three lower graphs are for 2.4 GHz: the closer the router, the higher the speed. The maximum was about 90 Mbps, which is quite good for this band.
The two upper graphs are for 5 GHz: the first reached 125 Mbps, the second 225 Mbps.


Since I already had iPerf running, I also measured the wired network card's speed. The result fluctuated between 500 and 800 Mbps, despite the rated speed of 1000.


Now for the tests I was most interested in: heat.
It's no secret that overheating often severely limits device performance, and good cooling is not only key to a long service life, but also to high performance. In my computer reviews, I always focus on overheating, since it's often the main scourge of Chinese devices—and not just Chinese ones.

This time, instead of running the tests in stages, I launched OCCT and pushed it straight to the limit.


Near the end of the test, the temperature reached 97 degrees, which is quite high. I understand that these tests are considered extreme, but even so, that's a pretty high temperature.


The next test really surprised me. Usually, OCCT's power supply test loads the computer as heavily as possible. But the LinX test produced an even higher load. After 8 minutes, the computer went into sleep mode. At first I didn't understand what had happened and thought I'd forgotten to disable automatic sleep. But no—the BIOS puts the computer to sleep when it overheats.
I ran it a couple more times in continuation mode, but eventually decided not to push it any further. A temperature of 103 degrees speaks for itself; the throttling flag was also set.

What's strange about this test is that LinX usually puts less load on the processor than OCCT, since it essentially runs the same LinX test but also loads the graphics. Here, though, the opposite turned out to be true.
You might ask when this kind of load could occur in practice. One example is video encoding—a task that can run for hours with the math processor fully loaded. In this case, it will end up going into sleep mode.


The tests showed that the computer definitely needs some work. Since this involves taking it apart, I decided to combine the job with a look inside, especially as I wanted to check for internal differences.

As last time, first remove the three self-tapping screws. Yes, three, not two as it might seem at first—the third one is hidden beneath the round part of the case.
Then run something flat around the perimeter and separate the two halves. I should note that it was much easier to take apart this time; I recommend starting at the back of the case.


The button has its own small circuit board.


At first glance, the assembly is reasonably neat. The large wiring harness spoils the impression: although it’s wrapped in tape to keep it compact, it isn’t laid out very neatly.


All the extra connections are brought out to one large connector. It carries the power button signal, the backlight, USB, and the card reader.


So the cable wouldn’t get in my way later, I simply unplugged it. Indeed 000000000000000000000000000

Another design difference (besides the connecting wires): the WiFi antennas have been moved to the front of the case; on the previous model, they were at the back. I think this is better.


The front-panel board might initially look identical to the previous one, but in fact there are some major differences.
The board used to have a USB 2.0 hub chip; it’s been removed, and the computer’s processor now handles everything.
There used to be protection components near the connectors; they’ve been removed here.
The card reader controller was an RTS5159; this one uses an RTS5170, though that hasn’t affected its operating speed at all.
A couple of small chips of unknown purpose have appeared.
The USB connector area is laid out for a USB 3.0 version, as indicated by the extra unused holes next to the connectors.


The Foresee SSD differs not only in speed but also in appearance. It’s built around a Marvell 88NV1120 controller and uses Micron flash memory, which is pretty good in terms of reliability.
WiFi module now has an M.2 connector instead of mPCI.


It wasn’t until I took the board out of the case that I realized what was missing: a RAM slot. At first I didn’t think much of it. Even when I saw in CPU-Z that there was no information about the installed memory modules, I assumed it was just a bug.
Yes, there’s no RAM slot, so 4 GB is all you can get. Of course, that’s enough for the vast majority of tasks, at least for now, but there’s no way to upgrade it.


The cooling system uses a classic design: a small blower fan and a heatsink. The heatsink is wrapped in thick tape, forming a duct that directs hot air straight outside instead of letting it circulate inside the case. This is a perfectly reasonable solution. Some time ago, I reviewed a Beelink computer where I had to make a similar duct, and it noticeably lowered the processor temperature.


The flat part of the heatsink sits against the processor and transitions into the finned section. This leaves room to fit the fan itself.


To remove the heatsink, you first have to peel off the insulating film on the back. There are four screws underneath that hold the heatsink against the board.
Incidentally, although the system has no spring dampers, the board doesn’t flex; the assembly is quite good.


There’s a post on top where the fan is supposed to be mounted, but there’s no fastener there. It was the same last time, so don’t worry :)


The heatsink is quite thick where it presses against the processor, but the finish leaves a lot to be desired. There’s a thermal pad about 0.5 mm thick between the processor and the heatsink.
I forgot to mention the fan operation earlier. It has three speeds plus off, and in everyday use it runs at the lowest speed almost all the time. It makes a quiet rustling sound, with no hum. As the temperature rises, it gradually switches to maximum speed. At that point it becomes quite noticeable, though I wouldn’t call it annoying—it sounds roughly like a laptop fan.


And here’s the computer’s motherboard. Looks pretty good on the outside: neat and clean.


Let's take a look at the internals.
1. Celeron J3455 SoC
2. IT8528 Super I/O chip; the Ethernet controller is visible to the right.
3. Audio codec.
4. PS175HDM DisplayPort-to-HDMI 2.0b converter. As far as I can tell, it supports HDCP 2.2.
5. IT6513 DisplayPort-to-VGA converter
6. Flash memory for storing the BIOS firmware


1. EEPROM chip for the PS175HDM converter (presumably)
2. Computer power input section.
3. Samsung RAM, four chips installed near the heatsink.
4. Presumably the RAM power supply section.


1. Looks very much like USB power controllers.
2, 3. CPU power converter stages.
4. Footprint for an LVDS-output converter.


Last time, I pointed out the filters on the USB signal lines near the connectors. There are no filters here, but there are protection components on the signal lines. I don't know whether this is a cost-saving measure or simply because they're not needed, but everything works great.


The video converter section and computer power input circuitry, overall view. You can see a footprint for an alternative power connector; together with the footprint for an LVDS chip, it suggests this board is intended for embedded devices.


The CPU and SSD power section, as well as M.2 (presumably).


Now for the cooling system modification. First, I tried simply removing the rubber pad between the die and the heatsink and applying thermal paste, but unfortunately it barely reached the heatsink, leaving a noticeable gap.
In the end, I had to use a couple of pieces of thick aluminum foil. I'd already tried this approach with another computer and was happy with the results, so I decided to do the same here.


One piece might have been enough, but I'm not sure—the foil is about 0.1 mm thick.
The modification is very simple: cut two pieces about 10 × 10 mm, apply paste to the processor, place one piece on top, apply more paste, place the second piece, then apply paste over the whole stack.
Of course, it looks like a bit of a Rube Goldberg setup, but we'll see the results later.
I used the widely available KPT-8 thermal paste and carefully flattened the foil before using it.


That's it. Put the fan back and reassemble everything. The foil's “donor” is lying on top; I think anyone who works with electronics has come across these kinds of “candy” wrappers.
If you use copper shims, aim for a thickness of 0.3–0.35 mm, with 0.4 mm as the absolute maximum.


Now let's run the same tests again, this time with the improved cooling system.
First, OCCT.
Much better results: last time the temperature reached 97 degrees, but now it stayed below 72 degrees.


The Linx test, which made the computer crash last time.
77 degrees versus 103—that's a 26-degree difference after a half-hour test! I expected things to improve, of course, but then I ran the test for another hour and the temperature still didn't exceed 77 degrees. That's excellent for two pieces of foil. It's a shame I can't try it with a single copper shim, but I think that would work even better.
In the end, the modification costs next to nothing and gives you proper cooling. So why couldn't they have done it right in the first place?


Thermal image after an hour of Linx.
1. Overall view. The “tail” at the bottom is the tabletop warmed by the exhaust air.
2. Computer
3. Power supply. The output diode gets the hottest. The PSU case is barely warm during operation.


I could run some gaming tests, but I don't really have any new games. Far Cry, which I like, should run without any problems—both the first and second games.
But I decided to test video playback instead. For this, I played a “bird” video; file details:
Ducks.Take.Off.2160p.QHD.CRF25.x264-CtrlHD.mkv (243 Mbps).
The video was played from an SSD.

Playback is smooth, and the CPU load of just 5% is very impressive. Hardware decoding handles everything.


Just out of curiosity, I also played a simpler file with a bitrate of only 100 Mbps. CPU load was 4.5%, and there was still absolutely no stuttering. The video was played from a memory card.

In my personal opinion, there’s no point in running any more video decoding tests. The computer handles even demanding video with ease; format support is ultimately up to the player.


Now we can compare some of the test results. Below is a table bringing together the results for computers with different processors.
The computers being compared are highlighted in yellow. Judging by the results, it’s safe to say that the new processor is definitely faster than its predecessor—though only after improving the cooling system.
What’s more, it’s faster than the other processors based on the Apollo Lake core.

Even if this table doesn’t affect your choice of the computer reviewed here, it will probably help you choose any other model, since it includes results for models currently available on the mini PC market.


Let me sum things up.
Pros.
High performance (after modification).
Well-thought-out design.
Good build quality.
Two video outputs: HDMI and VGA
Option to install an additional hard drive.
M.2 slot
Licensed Windows 10 Home

Cons
Overheats under heavy loads; modification required
RAM cannot be upgraded
A 9.5 mm-thick hard drive may be difficult to install.

My take: You can clearly see the work that went into the new model, though not all of it was for the better. First, you notice that the case has changed from glossy to matte. It’s a small thing, but it looks much better. Performance has increased significantly—more than twofold in some tests. But the manufacturers deserve a slap on the wrist for putting a black rubber pad between the processor die and the heatsink. It acts more like a thermal insulator than a conductor, and a 26-degree difference—even with three layers of cheap KPT-8 thermal paste—says a lot. More precisely, it says that this needs to be fixed. It’s encouraging that even a simple modification produces a clearly visible improvement.
It’s nice that you can replace the SSD and WiFi module, and that you can install an additional 2.5-inch drive. But removing the RAM slot is a real shame. Sure, plenty of users will get by with 4 GB until they replace the computer, but it’s always better to have the option than not. They really shouldn’t have done that, especially since there’s plenty of room inside the case.

All in all, I liked the computer, especially after the modification. If it hadn’t needed modifying, I’d call it good. As it is, I can only say it’s pretty decent.

The seller offered a discount for the review. The process is the usual AliExpress routine:
1. Buy the item, but don’t pay.
2. When placing the order, write “nopending” in the message to the seller.
3. The seller lowers the price to $159.99.
4. Pay and wait for the package.

By the way, the seller also offers a VESA mount separately for $7.99, but has coupons for $1 off orders over $1.01 and $2 off orders over $2.01, so you can actually get it for $6.
The seller also confirmed that the free HDMI cable will be included.

That’s all. I hope you found the review useful.