Beelink BT3 Pro Mini PC, another one

I only recently reviewed a Beelink with Apollo Lake, and now I’ve come across a mini PC from the same company, but with an older processor based on the Cherry Trail core. I’ve reviewed a similar computer before, but this model has 4 GB of RAM, 64 GB of flash storage, and “Pro” in its name. So, let’s take it apart, test it, and see what this “Pro” is all about.


I doubt I’ll have anything particularly new to say—or anything new at all, really—since computers with this processor (SoC) have been around for about a year. But time goes by, and I still hope the manufacturers will listen to their customers and finally start improving their devices, especially the cooling systems.
Since I have two mini PCs on hand, and they’re quite similar, I’ll compare them from time to time.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. We’ll take things in order, starting, as always, with the specifications.
System: Windows 10
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 outputs: HDMI + VGA
External interfaces: 2x USB 2.0 + 1x USB 3.0
Memory card support: 1 SD slot, up to 128 GB
Dimensions: 120 x 120 x 24 mm
Weight: 250 g


The packaging is pretty typical for Beelink: a square box made of thick cardboard, covered in text on all sides.


The contents are the same as last time: the computer on top, accessories underneath, and a VESA adapter in between.


Even the accessories are exactly the same.
1. Beelink M1 mini PC
2. Power supply
3. Long HDMI cable
4. Short HDMI cable
5. VESA adapter
6. Mounting hardware
7. Manual


1, 2. The manual is basically the same, but this time they’ve added a small note saying that Windows may ask for a serial number on first startup. Don’t worry—just click “Activate later” and everything will be fine. I wasn’t asked for anything.
3. As last time, the package includes two HDMI cables, both with Velcro cable ties for easier handling.
4. VESA adapter. Supports 75x75 and 100x100 sizes.
5, 6. The same power supply, rated at 12 V, 1.5 A. I have no complaints about its performance; the temperature stays within normal limits even when an external hard drive is connected and the computer is under full load.


The only external differences from the Beelink M1 are the design and color of the top cover.


The dimensions are exactly the same too: 120x120x24 mm. If I’m not mistaken, all of this company’s mini PCs have had similar dimensions.
The lettering on the case is poorly done; you can only see it from certain angles. Though really, who needs it there anyway?


The two versions have exactly the same number of ports and controls, though that’s where the similarities end.
There’s a small hole on the front, where the power indicator LED shines through.
On the right is the same SD card slot, but whereas the previous model had a pair of USB 3.0 ports here, they’ve been downgraded to USB 2.0. The ports are also rotated 180 degrees compared with the M1.
The back is unchanged: power button, USB 3.0, HDMI, Ethernet, audio output, and reset button.
There’s also a VGA output on the left for connecting a second monitor. In my opinion, having a second video output could be a plus. That said, I think the rather limited performance of these mini PCs would cancel out that advantage.


A couple of comparison photos of the two models.



The bottom also has four rubber feet and the small holes I criticized in my previous review. Though, to be precise, I wasn’t criticizing the holes themselves—they’re not to blame for the developers’ lack of understanding of the physics involved.


The BIOS, however, has a few differences. For the most part, it’s as bare-bones as a church mouse the previous model’s BIOS, but there are a couple of useful additions.
For some reason, they’ve added an option to select the WiFi module. Most likely, they make two versions of the board. On the plus side, there’s also an automatic startup option and a choice of boot options over the local network. Maybe that's what the “Pro” in the name stands for?

A reminder: you can click the images to enlarge them.


I also noticed a few differences during the initial setup.
First, the computer offered the usual standard language selection. But then, for some reason, it also asked about the region. I don't think I've ever seen that question phrased that way before.
After that came some unfamiliar questions about whether the keyboard layout was correct (rather than asking you to choose a layout), and whether to add other keyboard layouts.
Nothing particularly unusual, really; it just felt a bit unfamiliar.


After that, more or less the usual routine, although the computer didn't detect my access point.
Then there was another question about privacy settings, which I don't think I've seen before.
After that, a reboot, the manufacturer's splash screen, and everything continued as usual.



The desktop is uncluttered. You could say there's nothing on it at all, except for the Recycle Bin :)


Once connected to the internet, activation happened automatically. Russian was available from the very first startup.


Since it uses the same operating system and the same amount of flash storage, the available free space is also the same: about 46 GB.
Of course, that's not much, but it's far better than 32 GB, not to mention those downright exclusive budget versions with 16 GB, which should be banned for being harmful to your health :)


The closest review of a similar computer is my CHUWI HiBox review. It used the same processor and the same amount of RAM and flash storage, so it's probably the best one to compare performance with, rather than the more expensive Beelink M1.
In the CPU-Z 1.77 version, it scored 278/945 and 283/936, which is pretty similar. Its internals were also similar, by the way, though there were a few differences.


A Broadcom module handles WiFi and Bluetooth here, while wired networking is handled by Realtek.
The CHUWI had exactly the same setup, while the Beelink M1 has Intel WiFi.


Its sensitivity is comparable to the Beelink's and noticeably better than the CHUWI HiBox's. Back then I detected only 16 access points; here there are 26.


But a further test showed that although I can see the router on both bands from the farthest point, connecting to it is impossible.
The three lower graphs are for 2.4 GHz, with the router about 6 m, 2 m, and 1 m away; in the first case, there's no line of sight. The upper graph is for 5 GHz, with the router 2–3 m away and a few minor obstacles in between.


As before, I also tested the wired connection. The results are a little better than with the Beelink M1, with noticeably less speed fluctuation, although the previous test may have been affected by the load on the second computer.


Unfortunately, the manufacturer didn't bother to install an SSD and used only eMMC storage, which is slower.
1, 2. Flash storage test with 1 GB and 8 GB test files. Read speed is clearly not very high, to put it mildly.
3. No problems with the external hard drive; it works reliably, and as usual, the test was limited by the drive's own performance.
4. The flash card was connected through a microSD-to-SD adapter. Its speed was lower than the card is capable of, but I wouldn't say by much.


I was also a little disappointed by the rather erratic read-speed graph in the first half of the computer's flash storage.


The write speed was about the same here, fluctuating between 30 and 60 MB/s. Read speed, on the other hand, was around 110 MB/s, which is perfectly normal for eMMC storage.


For comparison, here's a test using an older software version, along with a comparison to the Beelink M1, which has Toshiba eMMC storage.


And, as a bonus, here are tests of other computer models that have been on my desk over the past few years. That's exactly why I always run the test using the same software version.
Voyo Vbook V2
Beelink AP42
Voyo V1 (eMMC)
CHUWI HiBox
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

There's also the Cube iwork8, but it wasn't included in the overall test. There are no computers with non-eMMC storage here either.


Remembering the old graphics driver version, which for some reason is left to the user to update, I updated the drivers here too, although the options were a little different. For example, it offered a production-branch driver.


But updating the driver affected only one version of the Cinebench test program.
Screenshots 1 and 2 show version 11 before and after the update; 3 and 4 show version 15, before and after the update.


To keep this from getting too long, I'll go straight to the more demanding tests.
3DMark scored 2657 points. The CHUWI HiBox scored 2824, but only after its cooling was modified. During the test, the temperature went into the red zone.


The new version scored 214 points. The temperature was almost the same, so I won't repeat the screenshot.


I didn't run this test on the CHUWI HiBox, but the Beelink M1 scored 878 points, which was far from the best result among mini PCs.


Strangely enough, the WinRAR compression test result was almost the same as the Beelink M1's, even though its processor is a little more powerful.


LinX gave up after 37 minutes because throttling started. You can see it in the drop in performance. There was no point continuing; the cooling clearly needs to be modified.


To modify the cooling—or at least try to—we first need to open the computer. To do that, peel off the four rubber feet and remove the four screws.


Run something hard and thin around the perimeter to release the clips, then open the case.


I immediately noticed that it has one antenna, not two like the Beelink M1. And to make matters worse, the connector is covered in hot glue.
To avoid tearing the cable during the process, I picked off the hot glue and disconnected the connector. It's not difficult if you're careful, but there is some risk.


Inside is a fairly attractive, large heatsink that takes up a substantial part of the interior. Like the Beelink M1's, it has a thick base, though it's not black and the fin layout is a little different.


As you can see, there's no connector for an SSD, which is a shame. The overall build quality is quite good, though the Beelink rarely gives me anything to complain about in this respect.


There is a connector for a fan, but apparently no way to control its speed. I haven't checked this feature on the Beelink M1, so I won't claim that it has speed control, but the fan connection is clearly different.


The same shaped steel plate is on the bottom, serving as an additional heat spreader, but the board is clearly different. I don't think I've come across this design before.


Besides the usual battery, there are four memory chips on the bottom, but they're covered by a shield, with a thermal pad between the shield and the chips. As I understand it, this is meant to protect the memory chips from excessive heat—not heat generated by the chips themselves, but heat from the processor. That is, The processor heats the board from one side, while a steel plate cools them from the other. As far as improving reliability goes, I think this solution is perfectly justified.


The board without the case. Compare this photo with the older models, both the Beelink and the CHUWI HiBox, and it’s clear that the heatsink here is much better, both in quality and in surface area.


There were no problems removing the heatsink here: three screws and it comes right off. That’s a nice change :)


It was actually after removing this heatsink that I found out how heat was transferred to it in the previous model.
The pad in the middle is for the processor, the one on the right for the power controller, and the one on the left for the four RAM chips.
It’s 1.5 mm thick everywhere.


The component layout is also noticeably different from the Beelink M1. There, the RAM chips were closer to the WiFi module, and there were clearly fewer of them. Here, it looks like they used 8 memory chips, four on top and four on the bottom.


1. Those aren’t chips on the processor (or, more accurately, the SoC, or system on a chip); they’re marks left by the thermal pad. They wipe off easily, but I left them there to make it easier for the camera to focus.
2. The RAM is made by Micron, a very good manufacturer.
3. The flash memory, on the other hand, is from Foresee. A cost-saving choice, since this is a budget manufacturer.
4. The multichannel converter is quite well known: it’s the AXP288.


1. Flash memory for storing the BIOS firmware
2. The RTD2166 converts the DisplayPort signal to VGA. I suspect the Beelink M1 has exactly the same converter.
3. Ethernet is handled by the already well-known Realtek 8111G.
4. The AP6255 WiFi module supports two WiFi bands + Bluetooth.
5. Analog audio output is handled by the ALC5651, also from Realtek.
6. An unknown power controller near the input connector.


A general view of the board around the connectors. You can see that the protection on the HDMI output lines has been simplified, as most manufacturers have been doing lately. That’s why I always recommend connecting HDMI first and disconnecting it last.


Now it’s time for a small modification. I still haven’t ordered copper plates in different thicknesses, so I have to follow the principle from a well-known cartoon: “Use what you have on hand, and don’t go looking for something else.”
In this case, I dug an improvised heatsink out of an old monitor board. It was made from metal about 0.4-0.5 mm thick, and I cut out a couple of squares roughly the size of the processor die.


I made a sort of “sandwich” from two plates and three layers of thermal paste. It’s a pretty rough modification, but I hope it’ll be better than a 1.5 mm-thick pad in any case.
The photo might make it look like the paste was applied in a thick layer. It wasn’t; there’s just enough to compensate for the unevenness of the plates themselves.


Next, very carefully (so as not to shift the plates), I put the heatsink back in place and reassemble the whole thing.
First, I decided to run OCCT. I hadn’t used it in the preliminary tests, since LinX alone was enough.


After a test lasting almost an hour, the temperature was clearly high. But remember, OCCT is an extreme stress test; workloads like this are practically never encountered in normal use.


A LinX run lasting over an hour showed that the temperature was clearly lower. Throttling never kicked in, even though the temperature remained high. The cooling could be improved by using proper copper plates instead of who-knows-what, especially since I used two layers.


The modification had no effect on the Cinebench test, since during the tests before the modification, the temperature never reached a critical level.


3DMark scored 2815 instead of 2657.


The newer version also scored slightly higher: 228 instead of 214. After the modification, temperatures in both tests fluctuated between 74-79 degrees; before, they were 83-84 and throttling kicked in.


The results of the main tests have been compiled in a summary table. It’s long overdue for me to add the other tests I run now but didn’t run back then, but I just haven’t gotten around to it.


Right at the very end, I tried playing games on this computer. I even thought about recording a video, but then I remembered I’d already done that with a computer based on the Atom Z3735, and the results were even better there. The resolution was 1920x1080, quality was set to High, and antialiasing was disabled.


And, as always, here are the takeaways from the whole process.
In my opinion, this model turned out worse than the M1 from the same manufacturer; it overheats. It’s worth noting, though, that the throttling threshold is lower here, so this model starts overheating sooner. In other words, the M1 and BT3 get equally hot; the difference is that the processor in the former has a higher critical temperature, while in the latter it’s lower.
Passive cooling is certainly a plus, but why the developers didn’t implement it more properly is a mystery.
To save costs and due to hardware limitations, there’s only one USB 3.0 port. On the other hand, since this computer isn’t very powerful and is unlikely to be suitable for demanding tasks, I think a configuration of 2x USB 2.0 + 1x USB 3.0 is perfectly reasonable: plug the mouse and keyboard into the USB 2.0 ports, and flash drives or a hard drive into USB 3.0.
The VGA output can be quite useful, if not for connecting a second monitor, then at least for added flexibility, since not every monitor has HDMI. I had no complaints about the quality; the image was good, at least at 1920x1080.
To sum up the pros and cons in a couple of sentences, it would go something like this:
Advantages: completely silent operation, 64 GB of flash storage and 4 GB of RAM, dual-band Wi-Fi, VGA output, and room for modifications.
Disadvantages: overheating and the need for modifications, slow flash storage, and poor Wi-Fi sensitivity.

Essentially, this computer is similar to the CHUWI HiBox, except it doesn’t come with a remote, but does have a VGA output.

As for the “Pro” in the name, well, they just put it there for no particular reason :)

That’s all. I hope this review was useful and helps you make the right choice.