Beelink T4 Mini PC

With Intel releasing newer and newer processor models, I was a little surprised to find that mini PCs are still being made with older chips, such as the X5-Z8500. But since I’ve reviewed quite a few computers based on Atom processors, I decided to take a look and see whether anything had changed since my previous review.


Yes, I really was surprised to learn that the X5-Z8500 is still “in service,” since my first review of a computer (or, more precisely, a tablet) based on it dates back to October 2015—that’s more than four years ago!

Specifications
Operating system: Windows 10
Processor: Intel X5-Z8500 (4 cores, x86 architecture, 64-bit, 1.44 GHz (2.24 GHz in turbo mode))
Graphics: Intel® Intel® HD Graphics 600
Memory: LPDDR3 4GB RAM + eMMC 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
Video output: HDMI + Display port
External interfaces: 4x USB 3.0
Dimensions: 106 x 106 x 17.7 mm
Weight: 250 g

As always, the packaging is neat, with the specifications listed on the bottom.


The package contents are familiar for a Beelink product. It includes:
1. Mini PC
2. Power supply
3. Standard HDMI cable
4. Short HDMI cable
5. Mounting plate for attaching the computer to the back of a monitor
6. Mounting screws
7. Manual



1. The documentation is in English and includes plenty of pictures, though everything is pretty clear and intuitive anyway.
2. Metal plate and hardware for mounting the computer behind a monitor using a standard VESA mount. Interestingly, the label found on previous versions of the computer is no longer here.
3, 4. Standard and short HDMI cables. The short one is handy when the computer is mounted behind the monitor.
5, 6. Power supply with a European plug, 12 V output, up to 1.5 A. It’s a standard power supply; it barely gets warm during use and works reliably.


It looks like an ordinary little black box, with a matte top and glossy sides. It has an Intel logo.


Controls and connectors:
Front — a pair of USB ports, audio output, and the power button
Rear — Ethernet, Display port, HDMI, USB, and the power input
Left side — ventilation slots and a reset button hole.
Right side — ventilation slots and the fourth USB port.

A couple of unusual things:
1. The reset button. As far as I remember, not all computers like this have one, so I didn’t notice it until I took the unit apart.
2. There’s no memory card slot. Most mini PCs, at least from Beelink, had an SD card slot, sometimes a microSD slot.


Another difference from some previous models is the smaller case. I wouldn’t call that an improvement, since the smaller the case, the harder it is to dissipate heat from inside.
There’s also a warning on the bottom that it can get hot. It reminded me of a quote from the movie Interstate 60 that captures the point of this warning perfectly —



Also, if anyone read my review of the King Pro TV box from the same company, I think you'll remember that it had the same bottom panel, with the same lettering and rubber feet. Standardization at its finest.


Another difference, and a fairly important one: the power button is now not only backlit, but also located on the front!
Your mileage may vary, but my wife once complained that having the button on the back was really inconvenient, since you had to feel around for it. Turning the computer around with a bunch of cables plugged in wasn't practical. Well, the Beelink developers heard that feedback and moved it to the front :)


As usual, I took it apart after testing, but logically it makes more sense to show the teardown after the exterior inspection.
The computer comes apart just like the King Pro TV box. In fact, the only external difference is probably that the T4 has a plastic case, while the King Pro has a metal one. Given the Atom's higher heat output, though, it would have been better the other way around, with some of the heat transferred to the cover.


Interestingly, the screw holes in the cover are reinforced, though I couldn't quite figure out why.


Almost all the internal space is taken up by a large blackened heatsink. As with the King Pro, the case's side vents line up with the heatsink fins. So, to keep temperatures down, it's better to position it vertically with a side edge facing up, rather than with the front or rear panel facing up as originally intended. Fortunately, the VESA mounting system usually allows this, since it has four holes.


The battery glued to the heatsink looks odd; it would have been safer to move it off to the side.


I remove four more screws and get to the two Wi-Fi antennas.


There aren't many components on the underside of the circuit board; it's mostly clean and tidy, apart from the soldering marks around the power button.


Here we have a USB hub, along with some kind of controller and protection components for the USB ports.


At the front of the board, there's a footprint for some kind of many-legged chip, but I have no idea what it might be.


All the connectors are labeled. Some also have foam with conductive tape attached, connecting the board's ground to the rear cover—just like on name-brand devices. Overall, I'd say Beelink's products have improved somewhat lately. It was noticeable with the King Pro too, so perhaps the devices have undergone a redesign.


The heatsink is thick, with equally thick fins. Personally, I think it would have been more effective to make the fins 1.5–2 times thinner to improve airflow.


The heatsink is held in place by three screws, one of which is hidden under the battery. An unusual spot...


As you can see, there are many more components on top than on the bottom, and quite a few of them are hidden under the heatsink.


And once again, I'll refer back to the King Pro, since the cooling system here is implemented in exactly the same way. Heat is transferred to the heatsink through a copper plate, and a recess is milled into the heatsink for it. The recess is almost exactly the same size as the plate, so take care when installing the heatsink. Heat from the multi-channel PWM controller is carried away by a regular thermal pad.


The top side is just as tidy. The antennas and battery are connected with plugs rather than soldered.


The rear-panel connectors,


It's worth noting that all the interface connectors are protected, which earns the manufacturer a big plus from me. Few Chinese manufacturers do this.
Below is a footprint for a fan connector, but neither the connector nor the fan is installed. It looks like all the other components are populated, and there's even a chip nearby that may well be directly related to the fan.


Foresee flash memory. I haven't seen it in a while; in short, it's nothing special.
RAM: Samsung, not bad.
Audio is handled by a Realtek ALC5645. I can't really comment on it; it produces sound, and that's good enough.
A 25Q64 chip is also visible. where the BIOS firmware is stored.


A multi-channel PWM controller made by Intel. I didn't note down the original part number, and I can't make it out any better in the photo. All the capacitors on the board are either ceramic or tantalum.


Wi-Fi is handled by an Intel module, while wired networking uses a Realtek 8111—a classic choice in both cases. I was intrigued by the unusual design of the isolation transformer, though it isn't really relevant here; I just got distracted :)


The power input section: controllers, a power-switching transistor, and, rather unusually, fuses. One (single-use) fuse is on the input, and the other (resettable) is on the DisplayPort power line.


The computer's BIOS isn't cut down, as is often the case these days. It also has an option to power on automatically when power is applied, which is a nice touch.


The manufacturer's logo appears when the computer boots. Compared with computers equipped with an SSD, though, the boot process here is a bit slower.


During the initial setup, Windows asked for a bunch of information, an internet connection, and so on. The good news is that there was no need to change the language—everything worked right out of the box. It did ask me to set a username and password, though, and complained that “an error occurred.” After that, everything went smoothly.


The desktop is practically empty; there's no manufacturer software preinstalled.


A licensed copy of Windows 10 Home is installed, and it activated automatically the first time the computer was started.


The entire storage capacity, apart from the system partitions, is assigned to a single logical drive. About 33 GB is available to the user, which is perfectly reasonable if you use it relatively sparingly. In my opinion, it's more than enough for browsers, office apps, and the like.


A screenshot of Device Manager.


CPU-Z, with performance tests run in two versions, 1.88 and 1.77.

To be honest, I ran the tests mostly “for the sake of it.” They don't make much sense, and I'm not particularly interested in them either, since I already had a rough idea of what the results would be.


As expected, the flash storage isn't particularly fast. First, it's eMMC; second, it's Foresee. But again, if the computer is used for undemanding applications, this speed is sufficient.


An external SSD connected via USB, on the other hand, delivered excellent results and easily outperformed the built-in storage.


Before running the performance tests, I checked the power management settings to see if there were any options that might save energy at the cost of performance. There was nothing of the sort; I only disabled sleep/standby and the display timeout.


I started with the well-known Cinebench benchmark, using versions 11.5, 15, and 20. The results are, of course, very modest, but to be fair, this processor model is four years old, and it wasn't a record-breaker even when it came out.


While running the old version of 3DMark, I also monitored the temperatures and confirmed that the computer overheats fairly quickly, causing the processor to throttle. Still, the 3DMark result is within the normal range.


This is a newer version; I ran almost all the available tests.


PassMark 8: this is a comprehensive test, and the result isn't very high because of the relatively slow flash storage.



PassMark 9


WinRAR: after it finds the maximum, the result doesn't fluctuate much.


I tested for overheating using LinX only. The reason was that the temperatures immediately entered the red zone and stayed there at around 80–85 degrees. I usually run hour-long tests using OCCT, but we didn't get that far here.


The same gigabit Realtek 8111 chip handles the connection to the outside world, along with the same Intel WiFi module found in many previous computer models. It feels like this has become something of a "standard" for devices like these.


On the 2.4 GHz band, speeds fluctuated between 15 and 50 Mbps depending on distance. As before, Intel WiFi modules aren't known for their high sensitivity.
But things were noticeably better at 5 GHz, where the computer managed a nearly steady 150 Mbps a few meters from the router.


The wired connection was also stable, holding between 750 and 850 Mbps. In this case, though, the results depend noticeably on the second computer that the test is communicating with.


As I mentioned above, I took it apart after the tests, so I actually tried a little modification during testing.
In the past, replacing the thermal pad with a copper or even aluminum plate worked pretty well. The case still limited heat dissipation, of course, but it took noticeably longer to overheat.
This time, the manufacturer had clearly read my reviews (and those of others) and got ahead of me by installing a copper plate from the start. The plate is glued to the processor, though: it absolutely refused to come off, and trying to twist it didn't help either.


In an attempt to change something, at least, I wiped off the factory thermal paste and replaced it with the supposedly better GD900.


Unlike the previous test, this one started from a cold state, as indicated by the minimum temperature of 30 degrees. But after a while, the processor still throttled. To be fair, it ran without any performance drop for a while (about 7 minutes), but eventually it overheated anyway.
Still, I think the result is positive.


The final table shows that it even fell a little behind the computer with the same Z8500 from my previous review (highlighted in orange). Apparently, the limited cooling takes its toll, and this becomes apparent in tests that run for any length of time.


To sum up, this computer has very good build quality and doesn't skimp on port protection, but it does have slow flash memory and no SSD slot. And, of course, overheating is the stumbling block for most devices like this. In trying to make the device even more compact, the manufacturer forgets that you can't get around the laws of physics, and even a large heatsink can't dissipate all that heat. Ideally, it needs either active cooling or a heatsink that extends outside the case.

In short, this computer is good enough for YouTube, browsing the internet, office work, relatively simple programs, watching videos, and so on, but you should forget about more demanding tasks. Also, a reminder: to keep temperatures down, it's best to position it with the ventilation holes facing up or down.
Despite all the shortcomings I found, the computer left me with more positive than negative impressions.

The store provided the coupon GBCN85T4, which brings the price of this computer model down to $98.99.

That's all from me. As usual, I'm looking forward to well-reasoned criticism.