• 1(current)
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13
  •   
CuBox-i a new possibility?
#1
Checks it:
http://linuxgizmos.com/tiny-cubic-mini-p...e-arm-cpu/

Runs the i.mx6 processor and there is already a xbmc port for utilite/wandboard/GK802. Hopefully it won't be much effort to get it running on this 2" box. Price/features are very attractive. Any thoughts?

Official site: http://cubox-i.com/

I think I may get a dual when they start to ship. Should have enough umph for what I need.
Reply
#2
Looks like a really nice little box. Been looking for something to replace my Raspberry Pi (Love it but an upgrade would be nice) and this is definitely a contender.

Hope this gets supported.
Reply
#3
Yes, I've got the Wandboard Quad which looked like a nice box too, as did the Utilites but the Cubox-i finally does iMX6 at a consumer friendly price and the IR is an added bonus. I have the original Cubox too, and I do have concerns about heat with this tiny design, it will run very hot. The Wandboard has a really nice heatsink which I think it needs.

Martin
Reply
#4
CuBox-i is designed in optimized power consumption and heat dissipation in mind.
We will have figures updated in few weeks on actual power measurements on the device.

For now it looks like the main menu is the most demanding, power wise (with dirty regions disabled) since it renders all the time and consumes large memory bandwidth, and thus power.
Reply
#5
Why is dirty regions disabled?
Reply
#6
To measure max power and it's thermal impact.
Actually for today the benchmark is 3 processors running memtester on local caches, forth processor running the GPU, gigabit ethernet connect with iperf bidirectional for 35 minutes.

It takes 35 minutes to warm the beast to steady state.
Reply
#7
I was just about to pull the trigger on an Ouya. How do you think the Cubox-i will compare performance / feature wise?
Reply
#8
These i.mx6 based mini computers are excellent XBMC box in the very near future. The Compulab Utilite, Wandboard Quad and Cubox-i are being worked on as we speak in the hands of capable developers like http://stephan-rafin.net/blog/. I've been following these boards development closely and looks like we'd have full XBMC image that rivals X86. I have been so far stayed away from Ouya since these above mentioned boards are much better for XBMC (i.e., SPDIF, HDMI, CEC ...)
Reply
#9
I don't have Ouya so I can't compare.
Reply
#10
I am a newbie and don't see anything wrong with the psecs. Although, I would want one of the top two ones with the faster RJ45. But I am a little nervous that everyone saying how good this is only has a few post. Almost like a commercial. Does this look like a good possibilty to verteran XBMC users?

I am not saying it isn't just wanted more feedback.
Reply
#11
Maybe a daft question, but will it be possible to output 24p (or 23.976) from this if running, say, Debian and XBMC (or a possible XBMCbuntu flavour)? The CuBox/Solid Run wiki seems to indicate it'll work, but I need to be sure.
Reply
#12
From the order page it appears that cubox-i is available in either black or red color. Although there does not seem to be a way to select the color to order.
Kodi 17, Transparency Skin
PogoPlug v4 running Arm Linux 4.4.63 as MySQL (mariadb) server.
Mac OS 10.12.5
2015 27" iMac 3.3 GHz Quad, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD
2015 13" Macbook Pro, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD
AppleTV 4 TV OS 10
Reply
#13
Looks super promising.
Reply
#14
$55 model looks sweeeet. All of them do, actually.
Reply
#15
(2013-09-05, 03:40)Ned Scott Wrote: $55 model looks sweeeet. All of them do, actually.

I wondered about the speed on transfers from a NAS. Would the cheaper ones be a problem with that? It would be a nice option if that is no problem.
Reply
  • 1(current)
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13
  •   
 
Thread Rating:
  • 5 Vote(s) - 4.8 Average



Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
CuBox-i a new possibility?4.85