4 ms·

$599 seems like a lot to me. You can get numerous older, much more powerful Mini PCs (e.g older ThinkCentre Tiny series) or even a base brand new M4 Mac Mini fo

$599 seems like a lot to me. You can get numerous older, much more powerful Mini PCs (e.g older ThinkCentre Tiny series) or even a base brand new M4 Mac Mini for that kind of money. Admittedly, the 10G interfaces and fast RAM make up for some of it, but at least for a normal homelab setup, I can't think of an application needing RAM faster than even DDR3, especially at this power level.

esseph 8mo ago
You can't get an ARM one though, only X86, which is mostly the point.
- g947o 8mo ago
  Most people don't care about nominal difference in x86 vs arm. They care about cost, performance, efficiency, noise etc. Which applications run on the machine does matter. The article never explained why the author wanted an ARM setup. I can only consider this a spiritual thing, just like how the author avoids Debian without providing any concrete explanations.
  - CharlesW 8mo ago
    The usual reason to prefer ARM is efficiency, and the author's mention of replacing "power-hungry HPE towers" seeems to support that as a primary motivating factor.
    - inventor7777 8mo ago
      True. But as detailed in the Jeff Geerling article that was shared here in the comments, it has (at least at the moment) a rather high idle power draw, which seems to negate that, especially over time.
    - g947o 8mo ago
      That is meaningful only if there is evidence to support that. Mobile x86 processors used in mini PCs these days (as in 2026) are very competitive in terms of power efficiency. I wouldn't go for ARM just for that factor alone, especially without side-by-side comparisons of benchmarks.
    - adrian_b 8mo ago
      This ARM computer has a much higher (3 to 4 times higher) idle power consumption than a mini-PC with an Intel or AMD CPU (e.g. an ASUS NUC), while having the same price and a much lower performance. So in this case, the only valid reason to choose it is to have the ARM ISA for the purpose of software development. This Chinese CPU is the only Armv9 CPU that is available in anything else than smartphones or expensive computers from Apple, Qualcomm or NVIDIA (or in even more expensive big servers). So there may be cases when it is desirable for software development, even if it has some quirks.
  - esseph 8mo ago
    > Most people don't care about nominal difference in x86 vs arm. "Most people" aren't on HN, either. The # of ARM servers at cloud providers are growing, but the ARM server options are severely lacking for most. I, personally, would like to see more ARM growth (and I think we're heading that direction anyway... look at NVIDIA right now). Buying ARM servers that help push ARM software development forward is probably a good thing, IMO, from that POV.
  - throwaway27448 8mo ago
    > Most people don't care about nominal difference in x86 vs arm. That's rubbish; even the people who don't care about ISA will care about stuff like power draw and software availability (although ironically arm seems distinctly worse in terms of power draw here). But, I hope there are other people like me who will take a premium to avoid reading x86 core dumps, which is sort of like getting nails driven through your eyes. Yes, there's more software optimized for the chips; it is still bad code.
- inventor7777 8mo ago
  True. However, I've always noticed that ARM has less Linux support than x86, and the main benefits ARM is known for are typically performance/watt, running cooler, and less legacy support. Since this server seems to have pretty average performance/watt and cooling, I can't really see much advantage to ARM here, at least for typical server use cases. Unless you're doing ARM development, but I feel like a Pi 4/5 is better for basic development.
  - cromka 8mo ago
    Linux support for ARM is inferior for end users of desktop 3rd party software. Everything else is provided by the repos. I doubt this person runs Signal or Spotify on those servers.
  - adrian_b 8mo ago
    The performance is not average when compared with other ARM-based cheap computers, because it is high in comparison with them. It is also not average when compared to cheap Intel/AMD computers, because compared to such computers it is low. It could be called average only when averaging cheap ARM-based computers with cheap x86-64 based computers. This computer uses 8 Cortex-A720 cores (and 4 little cores with negligible performance), which have a performance similar to the older Intel E-cores, i.e. Gracemont or Crestmont from Alder Lake, Raptor Lake or Meteor Lake. They are much slower than the recent Intel E-cores, i.e. Skymont or Darkmont, from Arrow Lake or Panther Lake. So the performance of the whole CPU is similar to the 8-core Intel N300 (Alder Lake N) or Intel N350 (Twin Lake), which are found in various mini-PCs that are cheaper than this ARM computer. Even so, the performance of this ARM CPU is many times greater than that of a Raspberry Pi and greater than of any cheaper ARM CPU. For greater performance, you must buy a more expensive smartphone, or a Qualcomm or Apple laptop or mini-PC, or a very expensive development computer from NVIDIA.
    - Sander1685 8mo ago
      [dead]
- adrian_b 8mo ago
  This is the only thing at a reasonable price with an Armv9.2-A CPU that is not a smartphone, but this Chinese CPU has various quirks. An older but better ARM CPU with quadruple Cortex-A78 cores (Armv8.2-A ISA) is available for use in embedded computers from Qualcomm, rebranded from Snapdragon to Dragonwing. There are a few single-board computers of credit-card size with it, which are much faster than Raspberry Pi and the like. Such SBCs are cheaper than the one from TFA and they are better for the purpose of software development. The computer described in this article has the advantage of better I/O interfaces, the SoC has much more PCIe lanes, which allows the computer to have more and faster network interfaces. If you want for an ARM computer to be a true high-throughput network server, then this one is the best choice. Nevertheless, for a true network server, a mini-PC with an Intel or AMD CPU will have a much, much better performance, at the same price or even at a lower price. Using ARM is justifiable only for the purpose of software development, or if you want a smaller volume and a lower power consumption than achievable by a NUC-sized computer. For these purposes, one of the SBCs with Qualcomm QCM6490 is a better choice. While a credit-card-sized SBC has only one Ethernet port, you can connect as many Ethernet interfaces as you desire to it (by using an USB hub and USB Ethernet interfaces), as long as the network throughput is not important and you just want to test some server software. The Minisforum computer from the parent article has only 2 advantages for software development, the Armv9 ISA and being available with more memory, i.e. 32 GB or 64 GB, while the smaller ARM SBCs are available with 8, 12 or 16 GB.
jeroenhd 8mo ago
> even a base brand new M4 Mac Mini A base Mac Mini (256GB/16GB) would cost me €720 while a Minisforum MS-R1 (1TB/32GB) would cost me €559 (minus a 25 euro discount for signing up to their newsletter if you accept that practice). Price to performance the Apple solution may be better, but the prices aren't similar at all. Upgrading the Mac to also feature 1TB of storage and 32GB of RAM, the price rises by a whopping €1000 to €1719.
- sgt 8mo ago
  559 vs 720? That's literally like a few coffees. I went to Amsterdam (assuming you're dutch) and I paid 5 euro for a coffee. Go for the Mac Mini, the hardware incl thermal is also built exceptionally well. That's why you still have 20 year old Mac Minis still running as home servers etc.
  - trvz 8mo ago
    And ironically, a special part failing and there being no replacement parts is more likely to happen on one of these NUCloids than a Mac mini. So over the span of 20 years they’ll pay a multitude on these crappy computers than what the Mac mini costs once. May as well get a specced out Mac.
    - taskforcegemini 8mo ago
      Isn't Apple also famous for not offering replacement parts other than replacing the whole thing and charging you accordingly?
      - sgt 8mo ago
        In some cases yes, but having used Macs for decades and also working in companies with Macs for all the developers one thing is clear; these things don't easily break. Built extremely well. (One exception being the GPU issues a few years back though on Intel MBP's)
        8mo ago
merpkz 8mo ago
Not sure about the CPU performance being much more powerful for some shit-stained NUCs found on ebay, but one selling point for these minisforum machines are hassle-free dual 10G interfaces which are required for decent cluster performance - see ceph or proxmox ( with ceph ) or even kubernetes with, you guessed it - rook-ceph. Getting 10Gbit interface to work on ThinkCentre is possible, but not guaranteed to be reliable. This machine is perfect for such application and price point is not that terrible all things considered.
- TacticalCoder 8mo ago
  > Not sure about the CPU performance being much more powerful for some shit-stained NUCs found on ebay The 10 GBit/s NUCs you find on eBay are enterprise-grade stuff: 10 Gbit/s hasn't really been a consumer thing. A used Fujitsu, Intel or Mellanox dual 10 Gbit/s bought on eBay isn't a "stained shit" that's "not guaranteed to be reliable". It's enterprise grade hardware. (that said the machine in TFA looks nice)
  - vladvasiliu 8mo ago
    I'd argue they're actually much better than some bargain-bin realtek cards, especially if you want raw performance. They'll also probably work out of the box on whatever "server" distro you throw at them, which seems to be an issue with the machine in question. However, GP was most likely talking about actual NUCs, not NICs. I mean, there wasn't a typo. The point probably being that the CPUs in some of those mini boxen are likely to be woefully undercooled, so performance may not be what you expect by just looking at the CPU model.
  - merpkz 8mo ago
    My point was they are not guaranteed to work reliably when shoved into a NUC, with janky adaptoprs and lack of airflow
thebruce87m 8mo ago
I just picked up a NAS - a ugreen dxp2800 - for £300. It has 2x nvme slots and 2x 3.5 bays. It’s x86 so if you don’t like the ugreen os you can change it. It runs docker (supports docker compose) and vms and has the usual raid stuff. They also do an arm version for half the price but I wanted the intel gpu for transcoding.
- vladvasiliu 8mo ago
  Does it take ECC RAM?
  - thebruce87m 8mo ago
    It doesn’t - I’ve had a quick look and I don’t think even their top model does.
ekropotin 8mo ago
2x10G is the biggest selling point of this device. This can be very useful in certain use-cases, when you need a high speed interconnect with SSD-backed NAS, for example. Or between a Ceph-cluster nodes for the faster replication.
Bluescreenbuddy 8mo ago
Good luck finding a Mac mini in stock

esseph 8mo ago

You can't get an ARM one though, only X86, which is mostly the point.

g947o 8mo ago
Most people don't care about nominal difference in x86 vs arm. They care about cost, performance, efficiency, noise etc. Which applications run on the machine does matter. The article never explained why the author wanted an ARM setup. I can only consider this a spiritual thing, just like how the author avoids Debian without providing any concrete explanations.
- CharlesW 8mo ago
  The usual reason to prefer ARM is efficiency, and the author's mention of replacing "power-hungry HPE towers" seeems to support that as a primary motivating factor.
  - inventor7777 8mo ago
    True. But as detailed in the Jeff Geerling article that was shared here in the comments, it has (at least at the moment) a rather high idle power draw, which seems to negate that, especially over time.
  - g947o 8mo ago
    That is meaningful only if there is evidence to support that. Mobile x86 processors used in mini PCs these days (as in 2026) are very competitive in terms of power efficiency. I wouldn't go for ARM just for that factor alone, especially without side-by-side comparisons of benchmarks.
  - adrian_b 8mo ago
    This ARM computer has a much higher (3 to 4 times higher) idle power consumption than a mini-PC with an Intel or AMD CPU (e.g. an ASUS NUC), while having the same price and a much lower performance. So in this case, the only valid reason to choose it is to have the ARM ISA for the purpose of software development. This Chinese CPU is the only Armv9 CPU that is available in anything else than smartphones or expensive computers from Apple, Qualcomm or NVIDIA (or in even more expensive big servers). So there may be cases when it is desirable for software development, even if it has some quirks.
- esseph 8mo ago
  > Most people don't care about nominal difference in x86 vs arm. "Most people" aren't on HN, either. The # of ARM servers at cloud providers are growing, but the ARM server options are severely lacking for most. I, personally, would like to see more ARM growth (and I think we're heading that direction anyway... look at NVIDIA right now). Buying ARM servers that help push ARM software development forward is probably a good thing, IMO, from that POV.
- throwaway27448 8mo ago
  > Most people don't care about nominal difference in x86 vs arm. That's rubbish; even the people who don't care about ISA will care about stuff like power draw and software availability (although ironically arm seems distinctly worse in terms of power draw here). But, I hope there are other people like me who will take a premium to avoid reading x86 core dumps, which is sort of like getting nails driven through your eyes. Yes, there's more software optimized for the chips; it is still bad code.
inventor7777 8mo ago
True. However, I've always noticed that ARM has less Linux support than x86, and the main benefits ARM is known for are typically performance/watt, running cooler, and less legacy support. Since this server seems to have pretty average performance/watt and cooling, I can't really see much advantage to ARM here, at least for typical server use cases. Unless you're doing ARM development, but I feel like a Pi 4/5 is better for basic development.
- cromka 8mo ago
  Linux support for ARM is inferior for end users of desktop 3rd party software. Everything else is provided by the repos. I doubt this person runs Signal or Spotify on those servers.
- adrian_b 8mo ago
  The performance is not average when compared with other ARM-based cheap computers, because it is high in comparison with them. It is also not average when compared to cheap Intel/AMD computers, because compared to such computers it is low. It could be called average only when averaging cheap ARM-based computers with cheap x86-64 based computers. This computer uses 8 Cortex-A720 cores (and 4 little cores with negligible performance), which have a performance similar to the older Intel E-cores, i.e. Gracemont or Crestmont from Alder Lake, Raptor Lake or Meteor Lake. They are much slower than the recent Intel E-cores, i.e. Skymont or Darkmont, from Arrow Lake or Panther Lake. So the performance of the whole CPU is similar to the 8-core Intel N300 (Alder Lake N) or Intel N350 (Twin Lake), which are found in various mini-PCs that are cheaper than this ARM computer. Even so, the performance of this ARM CPU is many times greater than that of a Raspberry Pi and greater than of any cheaper ARM CPU. For greater performance, you must buy a more expensive smartphone, or a Qualcomm or Apple laptop or mini-PC, or a very expensive development computer from NVIDIA.
  - Sander1685 8mo ago
    [dead]
adrian_b 8mo ago
This is the only thing at a reasonable price with an Armv9.2-A CPU that is not a smartphone, but this Chinese CPU has various quirks. An older but better ARM CPU with quadruple Cortex-A78 cores (Armv8.2-A ISA) is available for use in embedded computers from Qualcomm, rebranded from Snapdragon to Dragonwing. There are a few single-board computers of credit-card size with it, which are much faster than Raspberry Pi and the like. Such SBCs are cheaper than the one from TFA and they are better for the purpose of software development. The computer described in this article has the advantage of better I/O interfaces, the SoC has much more PCIe lanes, which allows the computer to have more and faster network interfaces. If you want for an ARM computer to be a true high-throughput network server, then this one is the best choice. Nevertheless, for a true network server, a mini-PC with an Intel or AMD CPU will have a much, much better performance, at the same price or even at a lower price. Using ARM is justifiable only for the purpose of software development, or if you want a smaller volume and a lower power consumption than achievable by a NUC-sized computer. For these purposes, one of the SBCs with Qualcomm QCM6490 is a better choice. While a credit-card-sized SBC has only one Ethernet port, you can connect as many Ethernet interfaces as you desire to it (by using an USB hub and USB Ethernet interfaces), as long as the network throughput is not important and you just want to test some server software. The Minisforum computer from the parent article has only 2 advantages for software development, the Armv9 ISA and being available with more memory, i.e. 32 GB or 64 GB, while the smaller ARM SBCs are available with 8, 12 or 16 GB.

jeroenhd 8mo ago

> even a base brand new M4 Mac Mini A base Mac Mini (256GB/16GB) would cost me €720 while a Minisforum MS-R1 (1TB/32GB) would cost me €559 (minus a 25 euro discount for signing up to their newsletter if you accept that practice). Price to performance the Apple solution may be better, but the prices aren't similar at all. Upgrading the Mac to also feature 1TB of storage and 32GB of RAM, the price rises by a whopping €1000 to €1719.

sgt 8mo ago
559 vs 720? That's literally like a few coffees. I went to Amsterdam (assuming you're dutch) and I paid 5 euro for a coffee. Go for the Mac Mini, the hardware incl thermal is also built exceptionally well. That's why you still have 20 year old Mac Minis still running as home servers etc.
- trvz 8mo ago
  And ironically, a special part failing and there being no replacement parts is more likely to happen on one of these NUCloids than a Mac mini. So over the span of 20 years they’ll pay a multitude on these crappy computers than what the Mac mini costs once. May as well get a specced out Mac.
  - taskforcegemini 8mo ago
    Isn't Apple also famous for not offering replacement parts other than replacing the whole thing and charging you accordingly?
    - sgt 8mo ago
      In some cases yes, but having used Macs for decades and also working in companies with Macs for all the developers one thing is clear; these things don't easily break. Built extremely well. (One exception being the GPU issues a few years back though on Intel MBP's)
      - 8mo ago

merpkz 8mo ago

Not sure about the CPU performance being much more powerful for some shit-stained NUCs found on ebay, but one selling point for these minisforum machines are hassle-free dual 10G interfaces which are required for decent cluster performance - see ceph or proxmox ( with ceph ) or even kubernetes with, you guessed it - rook-ceph. Getting 10Gbit interface to work on ThinkCentre is possible, but not guaranteed to be reliable. This machine is perfect for such application and price point is not that terrible all things considered.

TacticalCoder 8mo ago
> Not sure about the CPU performance being much more powerful for some shit-stained NUCs found on ebay The 10 GBit/s NUCs you find on eBay are enterprise-grade stuff: 10 Gbit/s hasn't really been a consumer thing. A used Fujitsu, Intel or Mellanox dual 10 Gbit/s bought on eBay isn't a "stained shit" that's "not guaranteed to be reliable". It's enterprise grade hardware. (that said the machine in TFA looks nice)
- vladvasiliu 8mo ago
  I'd argue they're actually much better than some bargain-bin realtek cards, especially if you want raw performance. They'll also probably work out of the box on whatever "server" distro you throw at them, which seems to be an issue with the machine in question. However, GP was most likely talking about actual NUCs, not NICs. I mean, there wasn't a typo. The point probably being that the CPUs in some of those mini boxen are likely to be woefully undercooled, so performance may not be what you expect by just looking at the CPU model.
- merpkz 8mo ago
  My point was they are not guaranteed to work reliably when shoved into a NUC, with janky adaptoprs and lack of airflow

thebruce87m 8mo ago

I just picked up a NAS - a ugreen dxp2800 - for £300. It has 2x nvme slots and 2x 3.5 bays. It’s x86 so if you don’t like the ugreen os you can change it. It runs docker (supports docker compose) and vms and has the usual raid stuff. They also do an arm version for half the price but I wanted the intel gpu for transcoding.

vladvasiliu 8mo ago
Does it take ECC RAM?
- thebruce87m 8mo ago
  It doesn’t - I’ve had a quick look and I don’t think even their top model does.

ekropotin 8mo ago

2x10G is the biggest selling point of this device. This can be very useful in certain use-cases, when you need a high speed interconnect with SSD-backed NAS, for example. Or between a Ceph-cluster nodes for the faster replication.

Bluescreenbuddy 8mo ago

Good luck finding a Mac mini in stock