You can't get an ARM one though, only X86, which is mostly the point.
Since this server seems to have pretty average performance/watt and cooling, I can't really see much advantage to ARM here, at least for typical server use cases.
Unless you're doing ARM development, but I feel like a Pi 4/5 is better for basic development.
This computer uses 8 Cortex-A720 cores (and 4 little cores with negligible performance), which have a performance similar to the older Intel E-cores, i.e. Gracemont or Crestmont from Alder Lake, Raptor Lake or Meteor Lake. They are much slower than the recent Intel E-cores, i.e. Skymont or Darkmont, from Arrow Lake or Panther Lake.
So the performance of the whole CPU is similar to the 8-core Intel N300 (Alder Lake N) or Intel N350 (Twin Lake), which are found in various mini-PCs that are cheaper than this ARM computer.
Even so, the performance of this ARM CPU is many times greater than that of a Raspberry Pi and greater than of any cheaper ARM CPU. For greater performance, you must buy a more expensive smartphone, or a Qualcomm or Apple laptop or mini-PC, or a very expensive development computer from NVIDIA.
An older but better ARM CPU with quadruple Cortex-A78 cores (Armv8.2-A ISA) is available for use in embedded computers from Qualcomm, rebranded from Snapdragon to Dragonwing. There are a few single-board computers of credit-card size with it, which are much faster than Raspberry Pi and the like.
Such SBCs are cheaper than the one from TFA and they are better for the purpose of software development.
The computer described in this article has the advantage of better I/O interfaces, the SoC has much more PCIe lanes, which allows the computer to have more and faster network interfaces.
If you want for an ARM computer to be a true high-throughput network server, then this one is the best choice. Nevertheless, for a true network server, a mini-PC with an Intel or AMD CPU will have a much, much better performance, at the same price or even at a lower price.
Using ARM is justifiable only for the purpose of software development, or if you want a smaller volume and a lower power consumption than achievable by a NUC-sized computer. For these purposes, one of the SBCs with Qualcomm QCM6490 is a better choice.
While a credit-card-sized SBC has only one Ethernet port, you can connect as many Ethernet interfaces as you desire to it (by using an USB hub and USB Ethernet interfaces), as long as the network throughput is not important and you just want to test some server software.
The Minisforum computer from the parent article has only 2 advantages for software development, the Armv9 ISA and being available with more memory, i.e. 32 GB or 64 GB, while the smaller ARM SBCs are available with 8, 12 or 16 GB.
The article never explained why the author wanted an ARM setup. I can only consider this a spiritual thing, just like how the author avoids Debian without providing any concrete explanations.
Mobile x86 processors used in mini PCs these days (as in 2026) are very competitive in terms of power efficiency. I wouldn't go for ARM just for that factor alone, especially without side-by-side comparisons of benchmarks.
So in this case, the only valid reason to choose it is to have the ARM ISA for the purpose of software development.
This Chinese CPU is the only Armv9 CPU that is available in anything else than smartphones or expensive computers from Apple, Qualcomm or NVIDIA (or in even more expensive big servers). So there may be cases when it is desirable for software development, even if it has some quirks.
"Most people" aren't on HN, either.
The # of ARM servers at cloud providers are growing, but the ARM server options are severely lacking for most.
I, personally, would like to see more ARM growth (and I think we're heading that direction anyway... look at NVIDIA right now). Buying ARM servers that help push ARM software development forward is probably a good thing, IMO, from that POV.
That's rubbish; even the people who don't care about ISA will care about stuff like power draw and software availability (although ironically arm seems distinctly worse in terms of power draw here).
But, I hope there are other people like me who will take a premium to avoid reading x86 core dumps, which is sort of like getting nails driven through your eyes. Yes, there's more software optimized for the chips; it is still bad code.