The Zotac ZBOX CI660 nano Fanless mini-PC Review: A Promising HTPC Platform
by Ganesh T S on April 16, 2019 8:15 AM ESTClosing Thoughts
The Zotac ZBOX CI660 nano proved to be an interesting system to review for a multitude of reasons. Zotac has traditionally presented affordable options to consumers in search of fanless PCs, and at roughly $700, the CI660 nano PLUS follows in those footsteps with a reasonable affordable price tag (in relative terms, obviously, when compared to other fanless PCs with similar performance potential).
However, it does have its share of issues: While the system contains no moving parts, a dull whine can be heard if you were to keep your ears close to the top of the system. In addition, occasional noises similar to the grating of fingernails over the fins of the heat sink could be heard. All said, though Zotac can claim that the system is fanless and passively-cooled, it is not an entirely noiseless system. The other issue is that of HDR support when using the HDMI display output port. Zotac claims that it works in their R&D labs, while we were unable to get it working properly with two different display sinks. Finally, the idle power consumption with the default BIOS configuration is a bit too high for our liking.
The three complaints aside, the ZBOX CI660 nano is actually an impressive system in terms of performance. The 4C/8T Core i7-8550U processor and 25W TDP configuration allow it to ace real-world benchmarks such as BAPCo's SYSmark 2018 and UL Futuremark's PCMark 10. The numbers are noteworthy, particularly when stacked against those obtained from actively-cooled systems with a similar form-factor.
Meanwhile high-speed I/O is also a high-point for the CI660, with Zotac giving the system a good amount of bandwidth to work with thanks to the availability of two USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-C ports based on the new ASMedia ASM2142 bridge chip (we saw it deliver excellent performance in the Hades Canyon NUC). Dual gigabit Ethernet ports (based on Realtek controllers) open up some interesting applications, even though we believe Intel controllers would be more attractive in that particular segment. The new industrial design is also good, but, a little more metal in place of some of the plastic components wouldn't hurt.
As for buyers interested in taking the CI660 nano in to the tradiitonal SFF PC domain of the living room HTPC, the media playback credentials are more than good enough for the average HTPC user. The HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 port enables UHD Blu-ray playback after connecting a USB UHD Blu-ray drive to the system. Kodi and its add-ons have plenty of processing power at their disposal in the ZBOX CI660 nano.
At $700 for the PLUS configuration, the Zotac ZBOX CI660 nano is on the affordable side of the spectrum for fanless systems. The platform is promising, and the board area will allow Zotac to innovate further in the future. Thunderbolt 3 ports and a more powerful Wi-Fi solution for the flagship configuration are probably some of the low-hanging fruits in future iterations.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
View All Comments
jgraham11 - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
BAPCo's SYSmark 2018 is an application-based benchmark that has been developed by Intel engineers for Intel CPUs and does not truly reflect performance of any real world application by any other chip vendor. The fact that every other chip maker have all abandoned Bapco's boards tell you something. This is a known conflict of interest that degrades Anandtech's credibility by highlighting it. At least in the past the articles, these conflicts were pointed out regarding Bapco's shaky past.Daeros - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
Anandtech's quality has been on a continuous downward slide, including increasing Intel/Nvidia bias, ever since Anand left. The site looks and sounds like it's written by children now - especially including comments the editorial staff post in comments sections and on twitter.Eris_Floralia - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
Hey what about my AndreiDigitalFreak - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
While I would agree that the quality is not near as good as it was when Anand was around, I don't see any bias.PeachNCream - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link
Read literally anything written about a Killer NIC.rrinker - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
Seems like this article only compares Intel systems to other Intel systems - so what's the problem? Other than, of course, this article does not agree with some personal bias of yours, therefore all of Anandtech is now not credible, etc. A little extreme reaction don't you think? But such is the way witht he extremism in EVERYTHING these days. Social media has destroyed any chance for critical thinking. Anandtech does an article that's positive towards Intel, OMG BIASED, They hate AMD. They write a different article that's positive towards an AMD product - OMG BIASED! Why the hate on Intel?Irata - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
Yup, using a benchmark by Bapco in which no chip company besides Intel seems to have confidence does leave a rather bad taste.nVidia, AMD and VIA all left the consortium back in 2011 and prior to that Bapco was found to have modified their benchmarks in a way that favored Intel CPU
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
SYSmark 2018 is one of several tools we use in this article. It is certainly not the only tool we use, and it's not a tool we use in all situations (e.g. architecture deep dives). Meanwhile for SFF PCs in particular, its power measurement capabilities are pretty handy to have. Plus the only other systems we're comparing it to are all Intel-based anyhow.MDD1963 - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link
If BAPCO SYSMark was developed by Intel engineers, this would seem more an issue if/when comparing Intel systems to AMD, and not really an issue when comparing all Intel systems...mammothboy - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
The Realtec NICs may be a blessing for use with Windows Server (Intel has a nasty habit of not providing drivers for many of their NICs). Having two will let you set up a team there (perhaps to use as a AD/DNS server) or use as a firewall/router (not that I'd use Windows Server for either).I've generally had good luck with Realtec with Windows Server and PFSense.