Intel NUC6CAYH (Arches Canyon) Apollo Lake UCFF PC Review
by Ganesh T S on January 12, 2018 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Systems
- Intel
- NUC
- UCFF
- Apollo Lake
- Arches Canyon
Final Words
The Intel NUC6CAYH provided us with the opportunity to evaluate a high-end member of the Apollo Lake SoC family. The Celeron J3455 is a quad-core processor with a 10W TDP. It easily enabled the NUC6CAH to come out on top in all of our benchmarks when compared against other Atom-class systems.
The HDMI 2.0 port (backed by a LSPCon) with 4Kp60 support is very welcome. However consumers need to keep in mind that the benefits from the HDCP 2.2 feature on that port are minimal at best. One of the popular streaming services that we tried (Netflix 4K) ended up not working as expected, with only the 1080p version of the 4K titles getting played. That said, the system has no issues playing all types of local 4K video streams using Kodi. VP9 Profile 2 is not supported, but, given the lack of HDR support, it is not a big deal. The presence of an infrared receiver also enables usage of a remote control if the system is used as a HTPC.
The presence of a VGA port also helps the NUC6CAYH target cost-sensitive markets that are yet to feel the need to move away from a VGA monitor to a HDMI or DisplayPort one. The SDXC slot is bound to have good performance, since it is enabled by a PCIe bridge (Realtek RTS5229). On the flip side, the unit only supports 8GB of RAM. Trying to install 2x 8GB SODIMMs makes the system ignore half the memory.
Coming to the pricing aspect, the NUC6CAYH is available for $130. This is par for the course when it comes to barebones systems using Atom-class CPUs. Intel recently announced that June Canyon (the follow up to Arches Canyon) had started entering the channel in late December. It uses a Gemini Lake SoC and promises better performance compared to Apollo Lake. This should exert further downward pressure on the Arches Canyon models, and that will only be good for consumers.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
54 Comments
View All Comments
ganeshts - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
Have you looked at the prices of RAM and flash lately? The Corsair kit was $90 when I was writing this review a week or so back (looks like it is $80 today), and the MX200 is relatively rare to find now (it was $250 when I was writing this). I think the cheapest equivalent today would be the BX300 480GB @ $145. So, the $470 price at the time of writing is probably closer to $355 now.That said, RAM and flash prices are fluctuating wildly due to the recent shortage. Things ought to become stable and a bit cheaper soon.
powellandy - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
Do you have any comment on the ability to play 3D - looks like it's an ongoing saga with Intel chips -https://communities.intel.com/thread/112109
bill44 - Saturday, January 13, 2018 - link
Been following that thread, which is now dead. Intel won't/can't fix it. If they could, they've done it by now. Not enough customer complained (not to mention, 3D for the industry is dead), as such it just gets dragged out until everyone gives up.Going into the future, native HDMI 2.x may fix the issue, but going by past experience, there will always be problems with a HTPC setup (check out MadVR Madshi forums regarding constant driver issues).
powellandy - Monday, January 15, 2018 - link
I agree, but I was hoping if they mention it in the review and perhaps ask Intel it would put a bit of pressure on them to fix it!bji - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
Do the benchmarks include Meltdown and Spectre fixes? If they don't, then the numbers are not accurate.ganeshts - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
The benchmark numbers were processed before the security fixes started coming in. The relative numbers are still accurate when you compare one unit against the other (all of them in the comparison graphs are Intel-based systems).We are waiting for the dust to settle on all security fixes before embarking on any benchmark numbers regeneration procedures.
satai - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
Some comparison to Core Ms would be nice.fuzzymath10 - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
It's just "feel" based, but I bought my NUC (the same one + old Intel 320 160GB + 8GB ram + W10 Pro) to play videos on my 4k TV. Before, I temporarily used my Venue 7140 Pro with the 5Y10. The 5Y10 is faster for pretty much any "normal" task such as internet browsing which shouldn't be a surprise. Raw multithreaded might be more similar but the Core M is a smoother overall experience.However, the NUC supports 4k @ 60Hz while the HDMI from my Venue is only good to 30Hz. The NUC IGP can also decode HEVC while the HD 5300 in the Venue cannot, and the 5Y10 is not fast enough to software-decode most HEVC content (neither can the J3455). The Core M is also passively cooled while the NUC is semi-passive (fan can shut off).
Unfortunately, Core M is also very expensive. However, I would say the jump in user experience from the NUC to Core M is greater than from Core M to my desktop (i7 3770).
lilmoe - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
Call me when Intel is capable of delivering anything remotely equal in terms of video/streaming playback performance and efficiency as my 2 year old Galaxy S7.Such incompetence, what a joke.
Hixbot - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
Are you kidding? This nuc is leaps and bounds more powerful that your smartphone.