Replacing Ship's Computer -- Atom vs Celeron?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by NahanniV

I have the Minix Z83-4 it is a bit more expensive, but has some advantages: 4GRAM, external 2.4+5Ghz Wifi antenna, full case heat-sink, HDMI and DP video. It works well and can run with a nominal 12V input.

I have two monitors that can work with it:
- LG 24" 1080*1920 IPS HDMI cut off the brick and connected to 12Vnom.
- Samsung 23" Monitor/TV USB player HDMI DP with stereo speakers, also cut off the brick and connected directly.

Both use about 20W full brightness, but I run them at lowest brightness and they use less than half that.

If you're not being super cheap like I was, the Minix would probably be a slightly better choice.

But that being said, my slightly lower spec BQeel is looking to be completely satisfactory. I think it even has the advantage of a second video output.

If I could change anything, the first thing I would want would be a second HDMI port so I could leave the large bulkhead monitor permanently hooked up for mirroring the screen to see from other places in the boat, or watching movies.

[Dockhead]

Incidentally, the auto power up is solved.

There is a setting in BIOS which is called "Auto Power On" or something like that.

Enable that, and all you have to do is switch the power supply switch at the nav table to power up the device. Works perfectly.

[Safc]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes! I do recommend. It's a nice machine, incredibly compact (like 1 1/2 packs of playing cards), and now works fine with no lag. 120 euros! Excellent graphics. You can have dual displays if you don't mind using a VGA connection for one of them. Only 32 gigs of eMMS pseudo SSB drive, but I have OpenCPN, whole world in CM93, a bunch of other programs installed and still have10 gigabytes left. Uses only 10 to 13 watts of power; the power supply is only 18 watts (!). No fan to pull salt air or dust through the chassis. Nice case and very nice mounting bracket included.

It was a great purchase.

My monitor is an 23" Asus 4k gaming monitor. I think any cheap Full HD monitor would be ok.

Hi Dockhead,

looks like your monitor costs about 3 times as much as your PC ? :-D

[john61ct]

That's been true for most of my devices for years now.

My network storage, my UPSs, in some cases the keyboard costs much more than the PC itself.

Heck my monthly cable bundle costs more than four of them.

[ullar]

Somebody has warmed up an ancient thread, was my first reaction, seeing that title -- Atom vs Celeron? And wrong I was.

My boat's computer has been an Atom based since 2013. More precisely Atom N2800 (2-core, 1,86GHz) processor on Intel DN2800MT motherboard with 4 GB RAM and 128GB mSATA SSD, running Win7. Fanless and straight ships "12V" powered, of course.

Why am I telling you that? Because my path on Atom road wasn't smooth. Actually, it was disappointment after disappointment. To be short, Intel's initial information on that then rather new processor was lacking and my plans for a nice and modern low consumption 64 bit 8 GB RAM machine failed short. Intel never supplied a full set of 64 bit drivers (I specially missed a 64 bit graphics driver) so I had to downgrade to 32 bit and 4 GB RAM. I had a feeling that Intel is pulling the Atom project back and basically lost my interest in it. So, I'm very glad to hear that I was wrong and there are new versions of Atom available and, I assume, those a fully covered with a set of nice 64 bit drivers.

Meanwhile, I'm still running OpenCPN, qtVlm, Photoshop and few other programs on that machine. It's connected to receive ships NMEA data and is my main net browsing machine -- well, it's just there, on chart table. But, may be, it's time to upgrade?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Safc

Hi Dockhead,

looks like your monitor costs about 3 times as much as your PC ? :-D

Even more!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ullar

Somebody has warmed up an ancient thread, was my first reaction, seeing that title -- Atom vs Celeron? And wrong I was.

My boat's computer has been an Atom based since 2013. More precisely Atom N2800 (2-core, 1,86GHz) processor on Intel DN2800MT motherboard with 4 GB RAM and 128GB mSATA SSD, running Win7. Fanless and straight ships "12V" powered, of course.

Why am I telling you that? Because my path on Atom road wasn't smooth. Actually, it was disappointment after disappointment. To be short, Intel's initial information on that then rather new processor was lacking and my plans for a nice and modern low consumption 64 bit 8 GB RAM machine failed short. Intel never supplied a full set of 64 bit drivers (I specially missed a 64 bit graphics driver) so I had to downgrade to 32 bit and 4 GB RAM. I had a feeling that Intel is pulling the Atom project back and basically lost my interest in it. So, I'm very glad to hear that I was wrong and there are new versions of Atom available and, I assume, those a fully covered with a set of nice 64 bit drivers.

Meanwhile, I'm still running OpenCPN, qtVlm, Photoshop and few other programs on that machine. It's connected to receive ships NMEA data and is my main net browsing machine -- well, it's just there, on chart table. But, may be, it's time to upgrade?

My Atom machine is all 64 bit and is running fine on 2 gigs of RAM. It has 4 cores and runs at 1.86ghz.

I am especially impressed at how efficiently it handles complex graphics jobs like playing 4k video.

For 120 euros, I think you can't go wrong

[ullar]

Is that 2 GB RAM limited by your motherboard? It looks like a good possibility to have a much faster machine if you can add few megs of RAM. Sluggish OpenCpn, I mean.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ullar

Is that 2 GB RAM limited by your motherboard? It looks like a good possibility to have a much faster machine if you can add few megs of RAM. Sluggish OpenCpn, I mean.

I think how the OS manages RAM has a great deal to do with how much you need.

This box seems to run fine on 2 gigs and OpenCPN.

[barnakiel]

We have two nearly identical netbooks here one 2Gb the other 4Gb.

I cannot see any difference in how fast they are. There may be some difference in specialised tests, but none to the naked eye (with one or few apps running)

Perhaps 8Gb makes a difference vs. 4Gb, I can's say.

2Gb seems well enough anyway for regular daily tasks.

b.

[john61ct]

If I have to use windoze, 4GB is my minimum for known-low utility stuff, 16 for general-purpose.

Linux is generally OK at 2GB, but with large files/apps 4GB is faster with a mechanical HDD.

If wanting more than 3-4 year lifespan, I'd go higher.

[Safc]

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16856659001

169 $ , 4GB ram, 64 GB eMMC and has a battery built in..
Sounds like the best deal out there ??

[NahanniV]

Originally Posted by Safc

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16856659001

169 $ , 4GB ram, 64 GB eMMC and has a battery built in..
Sounds like the best deal out there ??

That has no OS loaded.

You would have to pay $100+ for Win10 and load it.

[barnakiel]

Yep.

The 100 tokens for Winslow license is always a pain.

I do not mind buying good stuff and Winslow is mostly good stuff to me. But the price is a bit pricey, so to say.

Linux is free though. I think there is also a free Android.

b.

[Safc]

Originally Posted by NahanniV

That has no OS loaded.

You would have to pay $100+ for Win10 and load it.

That's true.. but as a sailor you should know the pirate's bay, right ? :-)