Can someone explain the difference between a tower and the small form comps?

Tower: fit a full size PCIe card in there, not half height, takes U-DIMM memory instead of SODIMM memory, have expansion slot for 3.5" drive instead of just 2.5" drive. In the old days it also accept full size optical drive but they are now obsolete so don't care.
 
The unit you linked is basically laptop/notebook hardware shoved into a small case suitable for desktop placement. There are brackets that allow you to mount these to the back of your monitor as well for a truly compact installation.

They usually have 1x internal 2.5" hard drive slot which may or may not be occupied depending on configuration and it will have 2x RAM slots, just like in a notebook, with the one on top of the other. They take notebook RAM.

These are more than adequate for the usage profile you've described.
From the breaking news … sounds like more Zoom training needed … 😳
 
Honestly, the little SFF PCs are great for a lot of tasks these days. They're not just quiet, but cool and energy efficient. Apple started doing it 15 years ago with the Mac Mini, but they're not by any means the only ones. Laptop components are pretty darn good these days, especially when you put them in a case big enough case that lets them run cooler(or cool off faster when they do get hot).

I would venture to guess that the main reason most anyone buys a full sized tower these days is to put a really good GPU in it. At home, gamers want the best and baddest GPU they can get. In professional environments, powerful GPUs are used for things like CAD and 3D rendering. Some types of calculations are even really well suited to being done on a GPU.

Towers also give you lots of room for drives so you can put a lot of storage in them. With that said, modern external interfaces are pretty darn fast and if you need space you can get it even though your desk can end cluttered. The one linked above has a USB-C port, which is very, very fast.
 
SFF is not more energy efficient than the tower. It is weaker in electrical for future expansion. Tower can be upgraded so they typically have bigger power supply and let you add more stuff later on.
 
Honestly, the little SFF PCs are great for a lot of tasks these days. They're not just quiet, but cool and energy efficient. Apple started doing it 15 years ago with the Mac Mini, but they're not by any means the only ones. Laptop components are pretty darn good these days, especially when you put them in a case big enough case that lets them run cooler(or cool off faster when they do get hot).

I would venture to guess that the main reason most anyone buys a full sized tower these days is to put a really good GPU in it. At home, gamers want the best and baddest GPU they can get. In professional environments, powerful GPUs are used for things like CAD and 3D rendering. Some types of calculations are even really well suited to being done on a GPU.

Towers also give you lots of room for drives so you can put a lot of storage in them. With that said, modern external interfaces are pretty darn fast and if you need space you can get it even though your desk can end cluttered. The one linked above has a USB-C port, which is very, very fast.

First one might have been the G4 Cube.
 
SFF is not more energy efficient than the tower. It is weaker in electrical for future expansion. Tower can be upgraded so they typically have bigger power supply and let you add more stuff later on.

Many are using mobile processors that are geared for running on battery power.
 
First one might have been the G4 Cube.

The Cube is an interesting case, and I'm not sure that there are a ton of parallels to a modern SFF computer. I say that as something a Cube enthusiast(yes, there is such a thing-remember I'm a Mac collector among other things, and have 5 total ranging from bone stock to pretty heavily upgraded).

For one thing, they're actually surprisingly large. The desk footprint is about the same as a Mac Mini, but they're tall. They're actually almost exactly the same dimensions as the Mac Pro 6,1, aka the "Trash Can." There are other parallels between the two.

The second thing is that the Cube actually uses full blown desktop components. The CPU cards are pretty freely interchangeable between graphite/Quicksilver towers. They use the same 300 pin rectangular "socket" for lack of a better term and mount by standoffs in the same location. There are some caveats in that-the Cube VRM module can't handle the factory dual CPU cards, and some of them are just too big or have too much overhang to fit(plus the Cube heatsink, which is a gigantic aluminum slab, won't necessarily fit all dual CPU cards).

You also have, tucked into the "core", a standard 3.5" ATA hard drive. The optical drive is more laptop-like, but is actually kind of sort of shared with the slot loading iMac G3(I don't think they ever had a CD-RW option, which was BTO on the Cube). The memory is standard PC-100 168 pin DIMMs.

It had a standard 2x AGP slot also...or really not standard since it remapped some unused pins plus added an extra to support ADC(Apple Display Connector-powered the monitor, provided 2 USB ports, and allowed system power on through the monitor via one oversized DVI-like cable). The faceplate was also unique, but cards, both proper Mac cards and some flashed PC cards can be made to work-the biggest limits are the physical size of the card and whether or not the VRM can support them. Most of mine have Geforce 2MX cards, one has a flashed Geforce 6200, and one has a prized Geforce 3Ti.

The first "true" SFF Mac I'm thinking of is the Mini. They used the same 7447A CPU used in the contemporary iBooks and PowerBooks, plus the mobile version of the Radeon 9200 also used in some of those computers. It's all rounded out with a 2.5" ATA HDD and a slot loading drive that's also interchangeable with the iBook/PowerBook. The PowerPC Minis weren't great computers. The Intel ones did bump up to a desktop grade C2D CPU, but the early ones used the terrible GMA 950 Intel GPU. They also had a 2.5" SATA drive and SO-DIMMs.

But yes, coming forward to 2021, SFF PCs, whether made by Apple or someone else, do mostly use laptop components. Many of them also rely on what are now very good integrated GPUs. That makes them inherently less power hungry than desktop PCs, although they will generally outperform a laptop with the same specs just because they can move more air and get rid of heat better than a laptop can. At least with modern Intel CPUs, the advertised clock frequency is kind of a joke since most can go way over it if needed and won't overheat doing so, while they will also downclock to cool down if needed, or alternatively will do so to save power. The new M1 Macs publish a clock frequency somewhere, but you have to really go out of your way to find it(it's not front and center like with x86 CPUs) and really can run at any speed they need to get the job done as long as the temperature stays under control(which it does most of the time-after 10 years of using Macs I can't tell you how nice it is to have a computer with the CPU die running at 30-50ºC rather than a "norm" of 70-80º, and temps well up over 90º not uncommon if hammering it).
 
The Cube is an interesting case, and I'm not sure that there are a ton of parallels to a modern SFF computer. I say that as something a Cube enthusiast(yes, there is such a thing-remember I'm a Mac collector among other things, and have 5 total ranging from bone stock to pretty heavily upgraded).

For one thing, they're actually surprisingly large. The desk footprint is about the same as a Mac Mini, but they're tall. They're actually almost exactly the same dimensions as the Mac Pro 6,1, aka the "Trash Can." There are other parallels between the two.

I was just thinking that many cite it as one of the first attempts to shrink the size of a fairly powerful computer.
 
I was just thinking that many cite it as one of the first attempts to shrink the size of a fairly powerful computer.
Perhaps the first mainstream one, but I don't know about the first at that either.

The NeXT Cube was a bit bigger, but still fairly small vs. the typical computer of the day(it had a 12x12" footprint, the PowerMac Cube is 8x8).

The Silicon Graphics O2 is taller than either, and I can't find the dimensions listed in a quick search. Still, though, it had a square(ish) footprint. I had one sitting next to a Mac Cube at my last job and the size difference wasn't drastic.

Both of those were high end systems when they were made-more so than the G4 Cube.
 
I remember back in 2004 or so, I was looking to buy an old "laptop" for a project that was only 386 or so. As you can expect the "laptop" has a 3.5" HDD and 3.5" floppy drive, some 8 or 10 in CGA or EGA display, DIMM or DIP style RAM, and desktop CPU.

I also remember back then everyone was talking about how it is hard to build a cheap computer that's good and affordable for classroom or 3rd world, and eMachine was what everyone was talking about as a bad example of you get what you pay for. I think today we are able to do that with Chromebook because how small transistors can be and how fast network can be, and how we have finally made solid state storage and lithium based battery available at low cost, with most of our stuff stored on the network instead of locally, and we are using only our machine to "remote" into servers to do the work for us.
 
I remember back in 2004 or so, I was looking to buy an old "laptop" for a project that was only 386 or so. As you can expect the "laptop" has a 3.5" HDD and 3.5" floppy drive, some 8 or 10 in CGA or EGA display, DIMM or DIP style RAM, and desktop CPU.

I also remember back then everyone was talking about how it is hard to build a cheap computer that's good and affordable for classroom or 3rd world, and eMachine was what everyone was talking about as a bad example of you get what you pay for. I think today we are able to do that with Chromebook because how small transistors can be and how fast network can be, and how we have finally made solid state storage and lithium based battery available at low cost, with most of our stuff stored on the network instead of locally, and we are using only our machine to "remote" into servers to do the work for us.

Oracle tried with the thin client back in the late 90s. That went nowhere fast. There were some really really odd commercials though.

These days I think my smart TV has more computing power. I can even surf the web by adding a wireless keyboard and mouse on the same USB receiver.

A Chromebook only has to do a few things.
 
Back
Top