Comments Locked

85 Comments

Back to Article

  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    Bleh UHD graphics. Terrible. The previous NUCs had Iris plus GPUs. AMD APU NUCs would dominate these things.
  • drexnx - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    looks like the 2 year old 2400G already does, a 4800U would embarrass this
  • timecop1818 - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    Yeh, if only AMD had stable/working graphics. Oh, wait...
  • kaidenshi - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    If only you had something else to troll about. How about some citations to back up your claims? Going on a year with my 2400G APU based system with zero graphics issues and far outperforming any Intel iGPU. There's a reason Intel chose AMD graphics for its Hades Canyon NUC.
  • MenhirMike - Wednesday, March 4, 2020 - link

    I think he might mean the (very real) issues that the RX 5x00 drivers have, like stuttering and random driver crashes. This has been much improved in later drivers, my 5700 XT is running perfectly fine now, but there were definitive issues. That said, those are Navi cards while integrated GPUs (which are applicable here) are using Vega. And initially, there was an issue with at least mobile APUs where AMD didn't offer their own drivers - I got a Ryzen 5 2500U laptop, and for the first year, I had to deal with way outdated drivers from Dell. But AMD finally came around and is now offering first-party drivers.

    So: There were definitive issues, there might still be issues, but it seems that all the big ones are resolved.
  • HStewart - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    You got to take in account of the market of this machine, most people do not need high end graphics for games and such. This is also likely use for engineering stuff where graphics is not actually used too much - like a monitor system, or back office systems for services and possibly reports.
  • 29a - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    That's still no excuse for Intel's horrible iGPUs.
  • Qasar - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    nope.. but hstewart, will keep making excuses for them. sorry hstewart, amds new apus would be for this market, and would probably out perform this by quite a bit. face it, your beloved intel, has lost this round.
  • The_Assimilator - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    I strongly doubt that even AMD's latest APUs can idle with a 4K display at under 5W. That power-sipping performance is critical to the market segment these devices are aimed at.
  • evernessince - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    Well yes if you are comparing desktop APUs vs the mobile chip in this system. If you compare apples to apples though, AMD certainly does have chips capable of idling that low even on the high end: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-ThinkPad-T495...

    And that's with last generation Zen+, not Zen 2.
  • HStewart - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    Did you notice - I made no mention of Intel in my comment - you falsely assume bias - which is normal in these types of forums.
  • 29a - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    "this machine" is a computer with an Intel processor.
  • Korguz - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    note falsely assuming nothing, it has an intel product inside, and you defended/made excuses for it.
  • MamiyaOtaru - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    No one has to assume anything about your bias. You have a posting history. I know you'd like to pretend that your comment that "made no mention of Intel" was your first comment ever and there's no context or anything that could inform readers about your position
  • MamiyaOtaru - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    not that your point is wrong to be fair. but no one is surprised you'd make one in defense of Intel, or that the person making such a comment would be you
  • HStewart - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    I think the bigger concern is why are so many offended by it - do you really believe that attitude will help bring people to AMD or other product.
  • Korguz - Wednesday, March 4, 2020 - link

    let me ask you the same question, do you really believe praising, defending, and making excuses for intel will being people to continue to buy intel ?
  • HStewart - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    Just because my posting history lends toward Intel on PC products - doe snot mean that I used other products - like Samsung Android and such. Maybe it more I just I don't like AMD - a lot because of personal experience with AMD in past - actually mostly on video side, Only trick with non-real Intel 386 cpu in my first computer. That gave me bad feeling since.
  • Qasar - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    no hstewart.. the issue is, you defend and make excuses for intel no matter what. even if amd clearly is the better product, you still praise intel, and bash amd in some way. and you almost never provide any proof of your claims towards intel. you have a known intel bias, and are known to be an intel fannoy, plain and simple.
  • paulemannsen - Wednesday, March 4, 2020 - link

    Your posting history is the biggest pile of shame ever seen in Anandtechs comment section. You are single handedly responsible for half of the downfall of a ones thriving community. The audacity of you, still thinking anything out of your mouth could be a benefit to society and not be downright poisonous is 110% delusional.
  • The_Assimilator - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    It's not, but the point is still valid: nobody buying these things is doing so because they expect them to be graphics powerhouses.
  • HStewart - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    But some people are so naive and don't realize the point. I came up in days when your purchase card that didn't even have GPU's on it. Not sure what level iGPU's are but they surely can run business graphics fine and even games a couple of years ago.
  • notb - Thursday, March 5, 2020 - link

    Horrible?
    These iGPUs can drive 3 screens with maybe 1-2W power draw. Show me another GPU that can do this.

    This is an integrated GPU made for efficient 2D graphics. There's very little potential to make it any better.
  • PaulHoule - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    Well, Intel's horrible iGPUs forced Microsoft to walk back the graphical complexity of Windows XP. They kept the GPU dependent architecture, but had to downgrade to "worse than cell phone" visual quality because Intel kneecaped the graphics performance of the x86 platform. (Maybe you could get something better, but developers can't expect you to have it)
  • HStewart - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    I think we need actual proof on these bias statements. I think there is big difference of running a screen at 27 or more inches than 6 to 8 inches no matter what the resolution.
  • Korguz - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    we need proof of your bias statements, but yet, you very rarely provide any.. point is ??
  • Samus - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    What does screen size have to do with anything? Intel can't make an iGPU that can drive a 4K panel fluidly, meanwhile mainstream Qualcomm SoC's have GPU performance able to drive 4K panels using a watt of power.
  • HStewart - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    Can Qualcomm actually drive say a 32 in 4k screen efficiently. Also what is being measure here, Videos or actually games and that depends on how they are written.
  • erple2 - Saturday, March 14, 2020 - link

    I'm not sure that I understand your statement here, as it doesn't seem to make any sense. I was not aware that they physical dimensions of the screen mattered at all to the GPU, apart from how many pixels it has to individually manage/draw. If your implication is the complexity and quantity of information that can be made significant on a 32" screen is different from a 5.7" screen, then I suppose you can make that argument. However, I have to make guesses as to what you meant for this to come to that conclusion.

    Generally the graphical load to display 4k resolution is independent of whether the actual screen is 6" or 100". Unless I'm mistaken?
  • PeachNCream - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    For once, I agree with HStewart (feels like I've been shot into the Twilight Zone to even type that). To the point though, Windows XP was released in 2001. Phones in that time period were still using black and white LCD displays. Intel's graphics processors in that time period were the Intel Extreme series built into the motherboard chipset (where they would remain until around 2010, after the release of WIndows 7). Sure those video processors are slow compared to modern cell phones, but nothing a phone could do when XP was in development was anything close to what a bottom-feeder graphics processor could handle. I mean crap, Doom ran (poorly) on a 386 with minimal video hardware and that was in the early 1990s whereas phones eight years later still didn't have color screens.
  • HStewart - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    I will say that evolution of Windows has hurt PC market, with more memory and such, Microsoft adds a lot of fat into OS. As as point of sale developer though all these OS, I wish Microsoft had a way to reduce the stuff one does not need.

    Just for information the original Doom was written totally different to games - back in old days Michael Abrash (a leader in original game graphics) work with John Carmack of Id software for Doom and Quake, Back then we did not have GPU driven graphics and code was done in assembly language.

    Over time, development got fat and higher level languages plus GPU and drivers. came in picture. This also occurred in OS area where in 1992 I had change companies because Assembly Language developers started becoming a dying breed.

    I think part of this is Microsoft started adding so many features in the OS, and there is a lot of bulk to drive the windows interface which is much simpler in older versions.

    If I was with Microsoft, I would have options in Windows for super trim version of the OS. Reducing overhead as much as possible. Maybe dual boot to it.

  • HStewart - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    I have some of original Abrash's books - quite a collectors item now a days

    https://www.amazon.com/Zen-Graphics-Programming-2n...
  • HStewart - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    And even more - with Graphics Programming Black book - almost $1000 now

    https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Abrashs-Graphics-Pr...
  • Qasar - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    you do know there are programs out there that can remove some of the useless bloat that windows auto installs, right ? maybe not to the extent that you are referring to, but ot is possible. on a fresh reinstall of win 10, i usually remove almost 500 megs of apps that i wont use.
  • erple2 - Saturday, March 14, 2020 - link

    This is an age old argument that ultimately falls flat in the face of history. "Bloated" software today is VASTLY more capable of the "efficient" code written decades ago. You could make the argument that we might not need all of the capabilities of software today, but I rather like having the incredibly stable OS's today than what I had to deal with in the past. And yes, OS's today are much more stable than they were in 1992 (not to mention vastly more capable)
  • Lord of the Bored - Thursday, March 5, 2020 - link

    My recollection is that was Windows Vista, not XP. XP was hitting 2D acceleration hardware that had stopped improving much around the time Intel shipped their first graphics adapter.
    Vista, however, had a newfangled "3D" compositor that took advantage of all the hardware progress that had happened since 1995... and a butt-ugly fallback plan for systems that couldn't use it(read as: Intel graphics).
    And then two releases later, Windows 8 dialed things way back because those damnable Intel graphics chips were STILL a significant install base and they didn't want to keep maintaining multiple desktop renderers.
    ...
    Unless the Vista compositor was originally intended for XP, in which case I eat my hat.
  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    you dont need a 6 core CPU for back office systems or report machines either. So they wouldnt buy this at all.

    Dell, HP, ece make small systems with better CPU power for a lower price then this. The appeal of the NUCs was good CPUs with iris level GPUs isntead of the UHD that everyone else used.
  • PeachNCream - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    The intention of the NUC was to provide a fairly basic computing device in a small and power efficient package. Iris models were something of an aberration in more recent models. In fact, the first couple of NUC generations used some of Intel's slowest processors available at the time. tim
  • niva - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    The point is that if you're making a basic computing device why even go beyond 4 cores. I kind of want a NUC as a basic browsing computer that takes up little space. I can see these being used in the office too. Many use cases for a device like this with 6 or more cores in the office, especially for folks in engineering fields running Matlab or doing development/compiling. However, in almost all of these use cases having a stronger graphics package helps, never mind gaming. Taking a step back in the GPU side, especially given what AMD is doing right now and this being in response to the competition, doesn't make much sense. Perhaps this is just to hold them over until Intel fully transitions to using AMD GPUs in the future?
  • Lord of the Bored - Thursday, March 5, 2020 - link

    Can I just say how much I love that four cores is now considered a "basic" computing device? It leaves me suffused with a warm glow of joy.
  • yankeeDDL - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    I don't think anyone is arguing that high-end graphics is needed in NUC. The iGPU of a 2400G, or that of a 4800U are definitely *not* high-end graphics. UHD is a sore thumb on pretty much anything that is not office and email.
  • Rookierookie - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    Office and email are exactly what most people would buy this for. UHD even has competent video playback.
  • yankeeDDL - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    What? 1Kusd for a PC for office and email? You can buy a good laptop for that price, and get the screen and the portability. No, at least not only office and email. I, for one, have been looking at NUCs to use as a light gaming machine, video/Youtube player to be connected to my TV. I've been looking at Zotac's products, to give you an idea: a "NUC" with a Ryzen 4800H should blow this out of the water, both in CPU and GPU performance, while probably being quite a bit cheaper.
  • Samus - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    Nearly 90% of all PC's sold (desktops, laptops, PC, MAC, etc) rely on Intel iGPU's and the UI's their OS's run must be built around their limitations.

    You need to consider Intel has been indirectly holding back UI progress and developement for two decades while everyone around them (from AMD to SoC chipmakers) has been focusing on GPU performance. It could be argued

    A) Intel couldn't be taken seriously in the ultramobile SoC space because they don't have a GPU to backup their APU\FPU IP and advanced production capabilities, which is why they threw in the towel.

    B) Intel is responsible for the collapse of the PC market (the death of the PC as they call it) because they have halted evolutionary progress on the UI experience, meanwhile mobile devices have vastly outpaced PC's due to their superior graphics performance, and thus UI's.

    C) Intel is embarrassingly the ONLY chipmaker struggling with GPU development. Because of their blind devotion to margins and profits, they have refused to license IP from companies that actually know what the fuck they are doing, meanwhile seemingly unable to engineer a product that's even close to competitive with the markets slowest options.
  • khanikun - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    B) Huh? What was halted for the UI experience, due to graphics? Rounded corners in Windows? Translucent windows? If anything, MS is the ones ruining the UI experience with Win 8, Win 10, and the current garbage Start Menu.

    If all you're looking at is eye candy, check out today's Windows, Android, iOS. They're all flattening out the UI. Shit's literally Win 95 with more color options.
  • Lord of the Bored - Thursday, March 5, 2020 - link

    "current garbage Start Menu"
    As opposed to the old garbage start menu.

    The Start menu has always been terrible. Back in 1995 AD, it was actually worse than Program Manager, and it hasn't actually improved a lot since then. (Windows 95 made several other changes that were very welcome, like the one-touch close button and always-accessible task bar. The start menu is notable for how uniquely bad it is in an overhaul otherwise full of good ideas.)

    Just because you are used to it doesn't make it right.

    (And the Windows 10 interface is not Win 95 with more colors. It is a flatter and less complex Win 95 with FEWER colors. Nary a 3D bevel in sight.)
  • Foeketijn - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    Then buy a SimplyNUC’s Sequoia. I like that I sold dozens of the things, and the only complaint is HDMI not coming on after sleep state once in a while, and 1 broken after a lightning incident.
    So they are in general bullet proof. Nobody once even asked about the GPU. And I am typing this using an old NUC on a 4k screen combined with a 1440p screen. No gaming, no Autocad and everything is well.
  • AbRASiON - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    Interesting, some of us /couldn't possibly care less/ about the graphics, as long as it's enough to run Windows reliably and play back video. But we would like more and more CPU performance in a low sized form factor.
  • nico_mach - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    You ... took a delivered, complete system apart to review it? And it's the first assembled NUC ever offered? Well, that's bold.
  • BedfordTim - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    The used to make complete Atom based NUCs which were pretty good value.
  • PeachNCream - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    Ganesh explained why the NUC was opened up in the article. Besides that, NUC systems are built to be user-accessible and are pretty simple to pull apart. It's like 4 screws to get the case open and pulling one ribbon cable off the motherboard to disconnect the mechanical drive. The barebones models are the same hardware and you have to crack the case to add storage or RAM or you do not have a complete computer.
  • nico_mach - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    I don't actually disagree with his reasoning, but I definitely have mixed feelings as a review.

    I forgot about the Atom NUCs completely. There's a name I haven't heard in a long time.
  • watzupken - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    With the new AMD APU arriving this year, I wonder if this is dead in the water considering the higher cost of the NUC. 14nm+++ is not going to save Intel when facing off 7nm from AMD as shown in the current processor stack from both teams.
  • timecop1818 - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    "7nm".

    Intel's "14nm+++++" (keep adding pluses, retards) is closer to 10nm than AMD's crap.
  • Fulljack - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    while fabrication nomenclature are now nowhere near it's actual marketed size, Intel's 14nm are still nowhere close with their own 10nm, and couldn't compete with TSMC's 7nm
  • Qasar - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    keep posting useless, anti amd, crap. keep showing the rest of us, and demonstrate to the world that you are a nitwit, then we will let you hang yourself, king oft trolls
  • Lord of the Bored - Thursday, March 5, 2020 - link

    Isn't this copy/paste'd from one of your other shill threads? Come on, man. Intel isn't paying you to repost the same old bullshit, your fans demand new content!
  • Korguz - Thursday, March 5, 2020 - link

    timecop1818 cant post new content, cause it doesnt have any.
  • xenol - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    The NUC product line is sort of dead in the water any way, I'd argue.
  • YB1064 - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    It would be helpful to include a small table that of benchmarks vs CPU performance scaling. Perhaps this is hard to do, but as a naive simple example:
    Benchmark#1 - scales with threads/cores
    Benchmark#2 - scales with clocks/IPC

    This is most likely highly complicated, but if anybody can do it, it is you guys. Ian, care to take a stab?
  • YB1064 - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    In the temperature charts (thermal performance page), the green graph shows huge temperature spikes (~ 20 C, Furmark). Is this real? The package graph is less noisy. How are you measuring this?
  • ganeshts - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    All parameters are recorded using HWiNFO. We have been using the program since 2013 for recording the sensor values in all our SFF PC reviews.
  • abqnm - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    "A new set of value-added features include the ability to configure a RAM disk in the BIOS, mount iSCSI volumes prior to boot, and set up various network interface characteristics."

    These are all actually possible in the NUC8 visual bios too, though the settings are a lot harder to find, buried in the boot tab.
  • Ratman6161 - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    This system isn't making a lot of sense to me from a price/performance standpoint. $605 for a bare bones? $940 as configured? Yikes!.

    One of the things I noticed is that there were a lot of benchmarks where the Asrock mini with the i3-8100 did pretty well against the i7 "u" cpu's. Particularly for just a standard office sort of machine, which is what I have
    in mind, the i3 performs just about as well and definitely well into the more than good enough range. Of course the i3-8100 will use more juice but its also way cheaper. I just had to satisfy my curiosity so I priced out a system. The Asrock mini with an i3-9100 (vs the 8100 in the review), 16 GB DDR4, 500 GB Samsung 970 Evo (previous gen without the + to save a few bucks) and a Noctua low profile cooler for a grand total of $465.00. I've got plenty of decommissioned 2.5 inch disk drives if I need to expand. Or if I want to cheap out completely, I could use an old 2.5 inch 850 EVO 256 GB I've got laying around which would bring the price down to $375.00.
    If I really wanted more CPU power, the mini would actually take an i7-9700K which would be +$275 from my local Microcenter and take the $465 configuration up to $740...still $200 under the NUC. Or a more reasonable for this system i5-9400 would add just +$65 to $530 total.

    So, keeping in mind that graphics don't matter for my usage and neither does the power savings of the "U" cpu's, I just can't see the reviewed system as a viable option
  • Holliday75 - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    I need 10k of them to install at buildings across the country. How soon can you build these and deliver?
  • Holliday75 - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    EDIT: Oh and I need ongoing hardware and kernel level support for the next 5 years with an option to extend that to 7 if needed. We boot a custom Linux image via PXE and this image changes on a regular basis along with our network infrastructure that serves it.
  • PeachNCream - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    I get teh point you are making, but there are also other mass-produced options other than NUC systems. Yes they are sometimes physically larger, but a SFF Dell or HP box may cost somewhat less in a bulk buy than a NUC with comparable compute power. If you need 10k fixed location systems, that would be where I would turn first rather than NUCs and certainly not use DIY builds.
  • sandtitz - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    That'll take about 3-4 months since Intel can't provide the CPUs...
  • Ratman6161 - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    "I need 10k of them to install at buildings across the country. "

    So? You have a different need than me. I just need one :). If you need them mass produced all the major manufacturers build something that's in this general size range with many different options for CPU, RAM, storage etc.

    But my main point still holds. There are options for PC's that are both cheaper and more powerful than the NUC.
  • Irata - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    You guys are still using Bapco benchmarks? Really?
  • ganeshts - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    Has been discussed ad-nauseam.

    If you don't like Bapco's SYSmark, feel free to skip the section.

    We believe it presents credible comparison points because it uses *publicly available builds of commercially used software*. The same Adobe applications and MS Office applications are going to be used by consumers whether they have an Intel-based machine or an AMD-based machine.

    FWIW, the Frost Canyon numbers in SYSmark actually show that there is no major gains in the benchmark to be had with the addition of the two cores compared to Bean Canyon. Whether people like it or not, most real-world applications fall back on single-threaded performance - Here, Bean Canyon and Frost Canyon are essentially neck-to-neck.
  • Irata - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    I know this has been discussed a lot, but isn‘t the consensus that it cannot be used as it‘s essentially an Intel sponsored benchmark. I mean nVidia, AMD and Via pulled out for a reason.

    Also, they have a history of skewing results by stressing certain tasks that feature specific CPU architectures over others going back to the P4 days. Why should this be different now?
  • James5mith - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    I have 64GB of RAM in my Bean Canyon NUC running VM's right now. How is this the first one to support it?
  • ganeshts - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    The keyword is 'officially supported'

    Max Memory Size is 32GB on this page: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...
  • MDD1963 - Monday, March 2, 2020 - link

    Pg 1 "... is stil a bit of an unsteady eara" Eara? :)
  • Zok - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    Ugh. Come on! Give me a NUC with 2+ NICs.
  • snowsurferDS - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    The AsRock mini 300 should be tested with a 3400G not a 2400G, at least.
  • dontlistentome - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    Prices keep on going up for no reason (seriously, why should this be so much more epensive than the i7s of a few years ago?).
    And that power consumption? 64W peak.
    next gen the power brick will be bigger than the NUC box.
  • alpha754293 - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    It's too bad that the thermal management design on these systems are so bad that under heavy CPU and/or CPU+GPU load, it's runs very quickly against the thermal limit, and therefore; has to start throttling itself due to the thermals.

    If the system had a better thermal management solution and was ACTUALLY able to run at full load for extended period of time, in this form factor, then it would be worth it, else, having a 6-core processor in there is so pointless since you can't even make full use of the previous 4-core CPU in the NUC8.

    This is my biggest complaint about my two NUC8s that I have. If it had better thermal management so it wouldn't throttle itself due to thermals, it would present a compelling argument against, for example, the Mac Mini.
  • ROD.LEE - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    was thinking of upgrading from my NUC8I7BEK, after your review, umm no.
  • TMCHouse - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link

    Hmm, I was expecting a real review with benchmarks, not just a system / specifications description. As a note, the people commenting on the graphics are spot on, I purchased one of these systems and the graphics performance is sub par to a NUC8I5BEH system. I've based this upon running multiple benchmarks and the frame rates are better on the older system with the Iris graphics. Unless you require loads of processor cores, you are better off with the older systems.
  • GreenReaper - Monday, March 9, 2020 - link

    I think perhaps you missed the other pages of the article? There are links and a combo box dropdown at the bottom, above the comments.
  • not_anton - Saturday, March 7, 2020 - link

    $600 barebone and they give you a huge ugly generic power brick to save like $10?
    Intel should but one of those Apple NUC minis to see how it should be done.
  • crashtech - Sunday, March 8, 2020 - link

    I can't believe they would regress in GPU! I question the value of the extra cores in such a device instead of improved graphics.
  • fishjie - Monday, November 29, 2021 - link

    Ok I'm glad I read this before buying. I own a NUC 6 skull canyon with i7 6770 and was shocked to see some of the benchmarks beat the new NUC 10. granted my use case is mostly watching netflix on my tv but i would want to game occasionally on it. going to explore some other options. Maybe the NUC 8 i guess. The explanation in the concluding remarks was helpful:

    "However, while the NUC8 was an upgrade over NUC7 in every respect, the Frost Canyon NUC10 slips up a little. Intel's 10th generation U-series processors come in two different versions – the 10nm Ice Lake and the 14nm Comet Lake. Intel's high-end Iris Graphics is available only on Ice Lake, and unfortunately, the Frost Canyon is based on Comet Lake. This means that, for a variety of graphics intensive workloads, the NUC10 actually performs worse than the Iris Plus graphics-equipped NUC8."

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now