Zotac Z68 mini itx is out!

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

ArtShapiro

Member
May 6, 2011
123
0
71
I've been waiting, like a lot of other folks, for these guys to finally reach market; I'm anxious to build an ITX Z68 system into, say, a little Antec 300-150 case. I see that the more expensive of the two, quite pricey, has two DVI connections - that's perfect for my dual-monitor setup. But it only has two USB2.0 ports - surprisingly scanty!

I'm just a little uncomfortable dealing with Zotac, who doesn't seem to have quite the universal respect of, say, Asus.

Art
 
Last edited:
DesiPower

DesiPower

Lifer
Nov 22, 2008
15,299
740
126
The cheaper one used ONLY DDR3 2133??? wow...

Why the eff are they so expensive...
 
Termie

Termie

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
7,949
48
91
www.techbuyersguru.com
Review: http://techreport.com/articles.x/21300

TechReport found some glaring omissions in the BIOS, but other than that, it sounds good (but really, really expensive). I like the power use numbers - very impressive efficiency.

TechPowerUp has a review as well: www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/Z68-ITX_WIFI/

By the way, watch out for that more expensive one. For some reason it has an onboard nVidia GT430 in place of a PCIe slot, which obviously jacks up the price, forces the use of SO-DIMMs, and makes graphics upgrades impossible. I have no idea why they'd ever sell a configuration like that, given that you already have Intel HD2000/3000 to provide basic video output and acceleration.
 
Last edited:
T

tomoyo

Senior member
Oct 5, 2005
418
0
0
The price is painful for sure. And it feels worse to me because you're buying such a tiny board. Although I'm sure it cost a lot more to integrate so many things into a tiny space. Honestly I find the B version to be kind of worthless with the integrated chip. And the A version seems pretty decent, but sadly only has 4sata ports. Either way this looks far more promising for someone who actually wants to OC, otherwise the H67 is more than enough.
 
A

ArtShapiro

Member
May 6, 2011
123
0
71
Folks, could you clarify what's wrong with the video on the more expensive guy? I'm speaking as one who intends to use the inbuilt Sandy Bridge video, which is more than I need as a non-gamer.

I too am somewhat disappointed by the use of laptop memory, although I can't logically say why. It's the reason I've shied away from the Asus P8H67-I board, after having just built a machine based on the Asus H61 equivalent (which uses normal DIMMs.)
 
VirtualLarry

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,586
10,225
126
I'm disappointed at the only 4 SATA ports, but that board is so jam-packed, I can see why they left them off.
 
Zap

Zap

Elite Member
Oct 13, 1999
22,377
7
81
ArtShapiro said:
Folks, could you clarify what's wrong with the video on the more expensive guy? I'm speaking as one who intends to use the inbuilt Sandy Bridge video, which is more than I need as a non-gamer.
Click to expand...

1) For a gamer, it isn't fast enough. For a non-gamer, it is overkill compared to the normal Intel HD 2000/3000. Thus, it isn't very desirable. One exception may be HTPC use, but then you may as well get an AMD APU.

2) The existence precludes upgrades.

ArtShapiro said:
I too am somewhat disappointed by the use of laptop memory, although I can't logically say why.
Click to expand...

I don't know why either. SODIMMs used to be more expensive, but now there seems to be price parity.
 
Zap

Zap

Elite Member
Oct 13, 1999
22,377
7
81
I think it is safe to assume that it does not support a port multiplier, unless explicitly stated. My reasoning is:

1) AFAIK if it is an Intel chipset SATA port, it won't support it.

2) It would be a marketing bullet point that I'm sure the manufacturer won't want to miss out on mentioning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom