Alfawise T1, a mini PC with an N4100 processor based on Gemini Lake

Not long ago, I saw someone mention that there hasn't been anything new on the market lately. But now I've got my hands on a mini PC with a processor announced late last year, and today I'm reviewing this new model.
About a year and a half ago, I posted a review of a similar new model with an Apollo Lake processor. This version is its logical successor and is called Gemini Lake.
As usual, the review covers the exterior, teardown, tests, and conclusions.


Many of you have probably heard of Intel's Tick-Tock strategy. It means that a new processor is released once a year, with performance improved one year and the manufacturing process optimized the next. Wikipedia puts it this way:

The Apollo Lake generation processors—or, more accurately, SoCs (System on Chip)—were announced in the third quarter of 2016 and manufactured using a 14 nm process.
Gemini Lake processors are still manufactured using the same 14 nm process, so we can assume (if the same strategy applies to them) that they should deliver higher performance at the same power consumption, since performance depends not only on the number of transistors on the die, but also on the process node used to make them.


It's worth saying right away that Intel managed to make a mess of things here too, thoroughly confusing its customers.
For starters, the company began adding the “Silver” suffix to the names of its desktop Pentium processors, while the less powerful models are still called Celeron.


But it gets even worse.
Above, I mentioned that I reviewed a computer with an N4200 processor. The new one is called the N4100, which doesn't make much sense. Even less logical is that the N4200 is a Pentium, while the N4100 is a Celeron. It would probably make more sense to compare the N4100 with the N3450: the model number would then increase, and both processors would be Celerons.
In any case, the new series of mobile processors includes three models:
Pentium N5000 (4 cores, 4 threads)
Celeron N4100 (4 cores, 4 threads)
Celeron N4000 (2 cores, 2 threads)

So we can expect mini PCs with the processor models listed above to appear on the market.


So today I have in my hands what is probably one of the first mini PCs with the new generation of processors, just as VOYO V1 was about a year and a half ago. But since it makes more sense to compare it with Celerons rather than Pentiums, I'll use another computer as a reference: the Beelink M1 with Intel N3450. If you don't want to read the whole review, you can skip straight to the end, where I've put some of the results into a comparison table.

Specifications:
Operating system: Windows 10
Processor: Intel Celeron N4100, 1.1 GHz (2.4 GHz in turbo mode)
Graphics: Intel® Intel® UHD Graphics 600
Memory: 4 GB DDR4 RAM + 64 GB eMMC + Type: M.2 + SATA slot
SD card slot, supports cards up to 128 GB.
LAN — Gigabit LAN
Wi-Fi — 2.4/5 GHz
Bluetooth 4.0
Display outputs: 2x HDMI
External interfaces: 2x USB 3.0 + 2x USB 2.0 + 1x USB Type-C
Audio: 3.5 mm jack + built-in microphone
Dimensions: 160 x 135 x 32
Weight: 407 g


The computer comes in packaging with a fairly recognizable design and color scheme. Those who often read reviews of Chinese computers will probably recognize it right away; I'll show you a more obvious clue later.


The package contents are pretty good and include:
1. Alfawise T1 mini PC
2. Power supply
3. Standard HDMI cable
4. Short HDMI cable
5. Monitor mount
6. Mounting hardware
7. Manual and quick-start guide


1, 2. Along with the manual, they included a brief guide to activating Windows, although in my case activation happened automatically. I should also note that the main manual includes Russian, though it's very brief.
3. Two HDMI cables: one is about 80 cm long, the other 20 cm. The shorter cable is very handy when mounting the computer directly to the back of a monitor.
4. Monitor mount and five screws (4 needed + 1 spare)
5, 6. The power supply outputs 12 V at up to 1.5 A. It worked well, but its rated power of just 18 W seems low to me, especially considering that you can install a hard drive. That said, Beelink used the same power supply, and it works perfectly well there.


The computer has a standard plastic case, but it's not exactly tiny: 16 cm long, 13.5 cm wide, and 3.2 cm high. The models I've covered so far had much more compact cases, and the Voyo could also take a hard drive, although it had active cooling.


The front panel has:
1. Microphone
2. USB Type-C
3. 2x USB 3.0
4. microSD card slot
5. Power indicator and button.


The rear panel has:
1. Reset button pinhole and Kensington lock
2. 12 V power connector
3. Two HDMI outputs
4. Ethernet port
5. 2x USB 2.0
6. Analog audio output and microphone input.

As you can see, the computer has a good number and variety of ports. It can also connect at least two monitors, and possibly three (taking the USB Type-C port into account), though I can't say for sure.


I should also point out the large number of ventilation openings on both the sides and the bottom of the case.


There is a hatch on the bottom for installing a 2.5-inch hard drive or SSD. My test hard drive fit without any problems, whereas it was a tight squeeze in the Vorke computer. The cover has a retaining tab to keep the drive from rattling around inside the case.


Installing the drive is extremely simple, so I don't see any point in showing the process. But here's a nice little detail: the mounting screws go into metal nuts embedded in the case, not into plastic.


Speaking of mounting. Since the ventilation is on the short sides of the case, I'd recommend mounting the computer vertically, with a short side facing up. That also keeps dust from getting into the ports.


The specifications say there's also an M.2 slot inside, so I'll have to take the computer apart to check.
To make disassembly neater, pry up the rubber feet from the sides indicated by the arrows; they come off more easily that way.


Then run something flat and rigid around the perimeter to release the clips. They're quite tight, so pull the top cover outward as you work to avoid breaking them.


The rest of the teardown, along with a description of the internals, is hidden under the spoiler as usual.


If a theater begins with the coat check, a computer begins with the BIOS. And things are bleak here—not because it’s bad, but because it’s really bad. The BIOS has been stripped down as much as possible. Some omissions wouldn’t have mattered to me, but the automatic power-on option was also among the casualties. In short, the entire BIOS fits into four screenshots.


The startup screen has no “fancy stuff”—just the processor manufacturer’s name, and that’s it.


The desktop is standard for Windows 10; the manufacturer hasn’t added anything of its own. After turning it on, I immediately connected the computer to my home network.


Of the 64 GB of flash storage, more than 43 GB is available to the user, which is quite enough with sensible use. There are already versions of the computer with 128 GB of eMMC, though.


Windows 10 Home comes preinstalled and activated automatically when connected to the network.


Key information from CPU-Z. Just in case, I downloaded the latest version. I also ran two performance tests, using both the new and old versions. I use the old version for the comparison table, since results are more accurately compared when they come from the same software version.


Storage performance is generally pretty good: the eMMC delivers 290 MB/s in sequential reads and up to 160 MB/s in writes. The hard drive test was limited by the drive itself, but the microSD card reader turned out to be rather slow, reaching just 27 MB/s, even though the memory card can manage 85–90 MB/s.


The card reader can actually identify the type of memory card installed, but that doesn’t help. A real shame, because even the “Atoms” handled my memory cards at full speed without an additional card reader.


As usual, I ran an additional test with an older version of CrystalDiskMark to compare it with other computer models.


The AS SSD test confirmed high sequential read and write speeds. Unfortunately, eMMC falls behind SSDs when working with small blocks, but there’s nothing you can do about that.


The Cinebench results showed that the new processor is slightly faster in the math test, while the difference in graphics performance is minimal.


I ran the full PassMark test, so the overall score is also affected by the flash drive’s speed, which is quite good here, unlike the Beelink M1.


As an additional test, I ran another version of PassMark.


Here you can clearly compare the new model with processors with a higher TDP.


The 3DMark 2006 test showed roughly the same thing as Cinebench: there is practically no difference in 3D performance.


In the newer 3DMark test, there is a difference: for example, the Celeron N3450 scored 261, while the Pentium N4200 scored 361.


I only started running Geekbench tests relatively recently, so I don’t have results for the N3450. Compared with the N4200, the results are as follows:
The Celeron N4100 is faster than the Pentium N4200 in math tests (1809/5116 versus 1555/4454), but it loses in graphics performance (7312 versus 11271).


A characteristic of these processors showed up repeatedly in the tests: turbo mode kicks in at first, and the processor runs very fast, but it only lasts for a short time, so the score eventually drops, as you can see in the WinRAR results.


And of course, one of the most important tests is the overheating test. Many people know that Chinese mini PCs are very prone to overheating, so I make this test a mandatory part of my testing routine.
This is a stress test, meaning that a computer normally doesn’t experience this kind of load during everyday use, at least not for an extended period.
OCCT test, total runtime: 1 hour; actual testing time: 54 minutes.

First, the Power Supply test. This usually puts the system under maximum load, with almost everything in the computer running. I can say that the computer handled this test well: the maximum recorded temperature was 71 degrees, with an average of 66 degrees.




In some cases, I found that the CPU OCCT test heated the processor more, so I now run both tests.
And indeed, the maximum temperature here was 77 degrees, with an average of 70. That’s a lot of heat, but still within acceptable limits.




To check whether the overheating protection kicks in, I ran the LinX test. As expected, the first pass produced a very high score thanks to Turbo mode, followed by only minor fluctuations caused by the fact that the test runs under Windows, which gets in the way a little.


The second run was with the hard drive installed. The drive draws quite a lot of power, since it isn't a Green model but a regular 7200 RPM drive. The temperature rose, but peaked at just 73 degrees, with an average of 61.
Besides the tests shown here, I ran several others. In one of them, the temperature briefly spiked to 89 degrees right after startup. This happens fairly often, but doesn't affect the test results because the spike is very brief.


As I mentioned above, the computer has a built-in microphone, so I checked that it worked too, just in case. The computer can make very quiet noises while running, usually from the PWM regulators, so I assume they might occasionally be audible if the gain is set high.


Available microphone settings.


The specs list a dual-band WiFi module and Gigabit Ethernet. According to the information I found, it uses an Intel AC3165 WiFi module.


Surprisingly, the module's sensitivity turned out to be pretty good. Although I couldn't connect to the 5 GHz access point from across the apartment, the computer detected it quite reliably—and that's about 12 m away, through several reinforced-concrete walls, including load-bearing ones.


The tests showed average results in both the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands.
For 2.4 GHz, I tested the router at three points: the far corner of the large room, two meters away, and one meter away. Speeds ranged from 16 to 60 Mbps, which is pretty good. I also tested the connection to a router placed a couple of concrete walls away; the speed was around 7–8 Mbps.
For 5 GHz, the router was 2–3 m from the computer, with a small obstacle in between. The first test reached 250 Mbps, while the second gave a more modest 150–170 Mbps. I ran it a third time and got the same 150–170 Mbps, so that's probably the actual connection speed.
With a direct wired connection, speeds ranged from 700 to 800 Mbps. I didn't bother adding that to the overall chart.


The 3DMark results didn't reveal anything new, so I don't see a point in running game tests. This is a typical Apollo Lake system: older games run fine, while newer ones probably won't launch or will run very slowly.

I did test video playback, though, and it works perfectly. 4K 60 FPS video plays very smoothly in the native media player, with CPU usage at just around 2%.


4K video with a 240 Mbps bitrate also played beautifully. CPU usage was higher, at almost 13%, but playing the same file in the built-in Movies & TV app brought it down to just 6%. The hardware video decoder is clearly working properly.


As usual, I put some of the test results into a table so they can be compared with similar tests of computers using other processors, both Apollo Lake and Cherry Trail.
Two things are clear:
1. In math tests, performance is roughly on par with the Pentium N4200.
2. Graphics performance hasn't improved much and sits roughly midway between the previous-generation Celeron and Pentium processors.


Conclusions.
First, some general thoughts about the computer. Build quality is good, there are no overheating issues, and you can install both M.2 and SATA drives. There are plenty of ports, two HDMI ports, Gigabit Ethernet, 5 GHz WiFi, USB Type-C (for anyone who needs more than the regular ports), and even a built-in microphone. My only major complaint about this computer is that you can't upgrade the RAM, so you'll have to make do with the built-in 4 GB. I could also nitpick about the underpowered power supply, so I wouldn't recommend charging phones from its USB ports, especially with a hard drive installed.

Now, about the new processor. Honestly, I expected a little more. It has the new UHD Graphics 600 GPU, but as far as I can tell, the focus was on video playback, while 3D was “forgotten.” It's a little faster, of course, but the difference is minimal.
In terms of “number crunching,” the new processor is on par with the Pentium N4200 and Celeron J3455, and noticeably faster than the older Celeron N3450.

As an alternative, there's also the Bellink S2 for $199.99, which is essentially the same computer.


That's all for today. I hope you found the review useful, and as always, I'm happy to answer any questions. If you have any suggestions for tests, let me know and I'll check them out if I can.