Thoughts on this mini PC for astro image processing

[IDM]

I currently use an aging Asus laptop with and i7-3517U processor, 10Gb of Ram and 500Gb SSD for a variety of astrophotography and image manipulation packages, the principles being; Siril (stacking and image manipulation), Deep sky stacker, Gimp, Affinity photo, Pipp, Autostakkert, Registax and my laptop is somewhat slow.

I was looking at mini-PC's as a sensible price alternative with low power consumption. One option I found was this https://amzn.eu/d/3BfQ9XC When I looked at the processor although, its i5 the fact that is is so much newer it looks like it might work OK (i5-8279u), I can also increase the RAM from 16Gb to 32Gb. Does it seem like a good option or should I consider something else (I don't really want to spend the earth as my astrophotography telescopes, cameras and mounts have already been rather a lot! Though of course if there is something slightly more expensive that will be a lot more powerful then I would of course consider it.

Thanks in advance.

Ian 

[Carbon Brush]

A thought on PC purchases in general.

If you don't need something as portable as a laptop, or something small enough to fix on a mount, why buy small?

Buying a small box locks you into that product and you can't make changes in the future.

If you buy a big box, it contains space. Space to fit a second hard drive, whether solid or traditional spinning.
Want to use multiple monitors? Or better resolution? There will be space for another video card.
PSU just failed - plenty of space in the case to fit something else.

I use a big box PC with a DVD drive for 'traditional' software. Installed 3 disc drives, an extra video card as I run 3 monitors.........

There can be good arguments for buying 'last years model'. Win 10 still works!
Or a used refurbished (if there is warranty) to save quite a few £££

HTH, David.

[ONIKKINEN]

For image processing, and future proofing in general i think you might be better off saving some money for now and building a desktop PC from components later. You get a lot more bang for your buck compared to a mini format PC.

But if you want that mini-pc anyway, CPU benchmark tests would indicate the mini-pc you linked to be about 3-4x faster in the CPU department alone. Wont translate into the same processing power increase butvshould be better still.

[Gary Clayton]

38 minutes ago, IDM said:

I currently use an aging Asus laptop with and i7-3517U processor, 10Gb of Ram and 500Gb SSD for a variety of astrophotography and image manipulation packages, the principles being; Siril (stacking and image manipulation), Deep sky stacker, Gimp, Affinity photo, Pipp, Autostakkert, Registax and my laptop is somewhat slow.

I was looking at mini-PC's as a sensible price alternative with low power consumption. One option I found was this https://amzn.eu/d/3BfQ9XC When I looked at the processor although, its i5 the fact that is is so much newer it looks like it might work OK (i5-8279u), I can also increase the RAM from 16Gb to 32Gb. Does it seem like a good option or should I consider something else (I don't really want to spend the earth as my astrophotography telescopes, cameras and mounts have already been rather a lot! Though of course if there is something slightly more expensive that will be a lot more powerful then I would of course consider it.

Thanks in advance.

Ian 

Hi Ian

I have been using a very small and low power BeeLink Gemini M with 8 gigs of ram for the last few years, it also runs on 12 volts and has windows 10 installed. So you don't need anything powerful to run a full imaging setup and the one you have linked too will work just fine for years to come.

Gary

[Elp]

Upgradable RAM is all well and good but if the processor is weak the rest of the system will be too. Most software is written to take advantage of CPU clock speed and cache memory (few take advantage of multiple cores), only the odd few take advantage of large amounts of RAM and even fewer GPU power (unless if gaming which stresses all three).

The main bottleneck with performance is heat (or being able to remove it efficiently), even high end laptops struggle and don't perform like their desktop equivalents due to this and their restricted power draw. It doesn't mean you have to spend a lot but as recommended above if you can accommodate and afford it, a desktop will last you a while if using it for this purpose only. I personally use a laptop and have been for a few years as I like the convenience form factor.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Elp

[scotty38]

1 hour ago, Gary Clayton said:

Hi Ian

I have been using a very small and low power BeeLink Gemini M with 8 gigs of ram for the last few years, it also runs on 12 volts and has windows 10 installed. So you don't need anything powerful to run a full imaging setup and the one you have linked too will work just fine for years to come.

Gary

If you mean image capture then I agree but the OP is needing a machine for image processing which is a different kettle of fish as far as I'm concerned 🙂

[malc-c]

I agree with the other posters in that unless there is a need for portability or for the PC to be mounted at the scope then look at getting a tower or desktop PC.  One thing to take onboard is that often these small NUC type PCs use the mobile version of the processor, which whilst still having the same processor  / core count has a lower THD of 28w so its performance will not be as good as a similar i5 for desktop.  The processor used in the mini PC linked to in the post above (there is a discrepancy in the title and description as to what processor is fitted !)  does indeed use the mobile variant.  The processor is also based on five year old architecture but still has hyperthreading to all 8 threads.  The listing mentions expandability, but it could mean that you have to remove 2 x 8GB memory modules and replace them with 2 x 16GB to get the 32GB stated, rather than simply adding another two 16gb DDR4  modules.  The expansion of storage in todays standards is poor, to only 2TB at most.  Given we process large files, often stacking 20 or more images at a time, that 2TB could be filled very quickly.   With a tower system the expansion is a lot easier with an 8TB mechanical drive that can be used for archiving images / subs coming in at around £125.  The main advantage IMO is that you can install a dedicated graphics card rather than use the built in GPU in the processor.  Now it could be that the software is more CPU than GPU orientated, but having the ability to connect two or more monitors makes working with files a lot more convenient, something that the mini PC lacks as it has just the singe HDMI port.  If you later purchase processing software  that does use GPU more than the processor then it's far easier to upgrade the graphics card in a tower, with the mini PC your stuck with its built in GPU.

The only drawback... cost.  A typical entry level home PC (Ryzen 5 4600G @ 3.75Ghz), 8GB DDR4 RAM, 500GB Nvme Samsung 980 SSD and built in wi-fi) will set you back around £500 these days, and that also uses the inbuilt graphics, and lacks storage space.  For something with a lot of punch, memory and storage space you could be looking at a grand for an entry level workstation !  But then like everything these days, you tend to get what you pay for.

 

[IDM]

Hmm, I can see the logic of all the arguments for the full tower PC. What started me down the avenue of thinking about mini-Pc's was that I use HP mini-PC's with i3 6th gen processors at the scope and was rather surprised how fast they were during setup and configuration. Indeed when setting them up I was pretty sure they were quicker than my Asus Ultrabook laptop with its I7 3rd generation processor.

I will have to give this some more thought. I see that Geekom also do an i7 11th generation version with a turbo of 5Ghz which must surely be a lot quicker than my old Asus ultrabook.

Does nobody process there images on laptops or mini-PC's?

[Elp]

I use a laptop, but it's a medium to high end. Usually each stacking session in dss the day after typically takes 5-10 minutes. Note CPU generations makes a massive difference, more so if it's mobile/laptop CPU compared to desktop. Case in point, I was rendering with my laptop when I first got it (8 core 10th gen intel 2.5 GHz up to 5 GHz turbo single core) and compared it to my old one (4 core 8th gen intel 3Ghz default clock speed), the old one should be fairly similar, one frame of render took 5 minutes Vs 25 minutes, so the old one didn't even compare, BUT, for astro processing I would think it okay. Don't take much notice of turbo CPU speed, a few minutes processing and it will throttle down due to hitting it's temperature load, another reason why desktop processors run faster (better heat management and they use more power).

[Elp]

Looking at them, the Ryzen 9 5900hx mini pcs might be decent (the Ryzen 9 are faster than the equivalent intel which intel readdressed with their latest raptor lake processors).

[Alien 13]

7 hours ago, Elp said:

Looking at them, the Ryzen 9 5900hx mini pcs might be decent (the Ryzen 9 are faster than the equivalent intel which intel readdressed with their latest raptor lake processors).

I just bought a Rysen 9 6900hx powered mini running at 45 watts with a boost up to 65 watts and its fast, the integrated RDNA 680m graphics are on a par with a desktop GTX 1050 Ti card, it is also running DDR5 RAM..

Alan

[malc-c]

Getting something with the latest gen processors is preferable to something that uses five year old technology and is a few generations behind the current, but then it's down to your work flow.  My main PC is a first generation Ryzen 5 1500x  with 16GB DDR4 RAM.   It handles rendering 4K HDR video from my Panasonic camcorder, and stacking 40 subs from my Canon D400 taking seconds per sub rather than minutes compared to the dinosaur this machine replaced.  I've lost track what generation Ryzen processors are now at, but I dare say if I swapped out the processor (and possibly the motherboard) for one of the new mid range Ryzens it would leave my 1500x standing...  But then if I'm doing a project that is likely to take hours to render I just let it do so in the background or leave the PC running overnight.   It's really down to your own needs rather than being sucked into the mad fast ever changing world of IT that makes the current fastest or highest core count processors this month obsolete the next !

To contrast this, I still use an old Core 2 duo Pentium with 4MB DDR3 ram and a 1TB 7200 mechanical drive as the Observatory PC.  It runs EQMOD, APT, CdC, and PHD2 that keeps the 200P on target and take 20, 30, 40 or more subs and darks.  It works and there is no real point at throwing an expensive modern PC in its place to do the same.  The point I'm trying to make is that if your current PC does the job its asked to do, such as stacking and processing an imaging run with DSS, but it takes most of the afternoon doing so, is the saving a modern machine offers in time going to impact you enough to justify the investment ?   If the original i5 mini computer the OP linked to is a real improvement over the current PC, and isn't bothered about the time it will take due to thermal throttling, or just a single monitor output, or the lack of expansion then it will do the job fine.