The Intel NUC8i7HVK (Hades Canyon) Review: Kaby Lake-G Benchmarked
by Ganesh T S on March 29, 2018 1:00 PM ESTMiscellaneous Aspects and Concluding Remarks
The NUC8i7HVK is a unique product in the market. Never has any vendor managed to cram in this amount of graphics and computing prowess in such a form factor. Intel has managed to do it, and it is mainly due to the out-of-box thinking that led to the creation of the Kaby Lake-G (KBL-G) family of products. Without KBL-G's capabilities, this product would have simply not been possible without some kind of compromise. KBL-G's integration of the discrete GPU die, its HBM2 memory, and the CPU die in a single package results in a shared thermal load. This, in turn, allows the processor to operate at a much higher TDP level compared to how it would as a standalone processor in a system with a discrete GPU on the board.
A SFF Enthusiast's Dream...
The NUC8i7HVK hits the ball out of the park on a number of fronts. There is no other mass-market SFF PC with a larger number of simultaneously active display outputs. The NUC8i7HVK supports six across a variety of interfaces (Thunderbolt 3 / USB Type-C, mini-DP, and HDMI). The wealth of I/O available is unparalleled in a PC with this form factor. Dual Thunderbolt 3 ports that allow connection of docks and other Thunderbolt 3 peripherals downstream, and a HDMI port in the front panel is icing on the cake.
NUC8i7HVK I/O Distribution across Front and Rear Panels
In the CPU-bound tasks, operating at a 65W TDP makes the Hades Canyon NUC perform much better than the Skull Canyon NUC with a similar form factor. The addition of a discrete GPU that, by itself, has a 60W+ power budget (compared to the 100 W package TDP) ensures that the NUC8i7HVK is VR-ready. In our real-world gaming benchmarks, the Hades Canyon NUC performed around 4x - 10x better than the Skull Canyon NUC. The efficiency in the distribution of the available power budget between the discrete GPU and the CPU has not been seen in any other computing system till now.
Enthusiasts will also appreciate the overclocking capabilities (on the CPU, GPU, and the DRAM), a feature never seen before in machines with a similar form-factor. The NUC8i7HVK has no trouble operating with SO-DIMMs that advertise default operating speeds as high as 3200 MHz, even though the rated base speed is only 2400 MHz.
But With Trade-offs...
While Hades Canyon has its strengths, it does fall a bit short of perfection due to its disappointing performance in our evaluation of it as a 4K HTPC.
Intel's decision to route all six display outputs to the vastly faster and generally more capable Radeon RX Vega M GPU makes perfect sense for a desktop. But the one area where AMD's latest GPU still trails Intel is in the media decode block. The Vega GPU can't decode VP9 Profile 2 - so no YouTube HDR support - and more importantly it doesn't support the Protected Audio Video Path technology required for UHD Blu-ray playback. The latter unfortunately came as a bit of a surprise to even some at Intel, as the company was claiming as recently as CES 2018 that the Hades Canyon platform would support UHD Blu-ray playback.
I've also been encountering some strange stability issues with the new NUC on video playback. Hardware-accelerated decoding with both Kodi 17.6 and VLC 3.0.1 triggered random freezing, something that I never encountered in doing the same tests elsewhere. As a result while Hades Canyon is still a decent enough HTPC option with its 4K Netflix HDR support - and hopefully one that can get a bit better with software updates - dedicated HTPC enthusiasts will find that it doesn't quite scratch that itch as it should, and that there are better options out there.
And while we're at it, while not showstoppers, some of Intel's controller and routing choices for what is a flagship system come off as odd. It is not clear why Intel has opted to go with the older generation Wireless-AC 8265 WLAN card instead of the current generation Wireless-AC 9260 with 160 MHz-wide channel support and Bluetooth 5. It is also not clear why the two Thunderbolt ports are sourced from the PCH's PCIe lanes and not directly from the CPU, particularly when we have the SDXC controller directly hooked up to the CPU's PCIe lanes.
Most users would never feel the impact of these decisions, but these are easy, obvious improvements Intel could have made that I'm surprised they didn't. But on the plus side, this gives the other SFF PC makers in the world a blueprint for how to improve on Hades Canyon, if they'd like.
Final Words
Coming to the business end of the review, we tackle the pricing aspect first. The NUC8i7HVK is priced at $999. This is par for the course when it comes to SFF systems with discrete GPUs. We have evaluated multiple such systems in the last couple of years - the Zotac ZBOX MAGNUS EK71080, EN1080K, and the EN1080 were launched at $1500, $1900, and $2000 respectively, and the GIGABYTE GB-BNi7HG4-950 was launched at $1000. In our opinion, the launch MSRP of $999 for the NUC8i7HVK is completely justified in light of the features offered and the pricing of comparable SFF PCs.
The Hades Canyon NUC generated a lot of excitement and raised expectations after its launch at the 2018 CES. And after taking it for a test drive, it lives up to a lot of the promises Intel has made thanks to the balance between performance and its small form factor. With that said, as a self-avowed HTPC enthusiast the lackluster media support disappoints me - and it will keep Hades Canyon from being the ultimate HTPC as it should be - so this is the one area where Intel has dropped the ball. There are plenty of other HTPC options, but the search for the singular no-compromises HTPC will go on.
Overall then, the system is easy to recommend for consumers who value a portable VR-ready gaming solution with a high-performance CPU, or indeed anyone that needs a powerful SFF PC that doesn't have to make a static trade-off between CPU performance and GPU performance. There are PCs have much better graphics and CPU performance, but, they are priced a lot higher and don't have the same portability or I/O richness as the NUC8i7HVK. And that really is what makes Hades Canyon shine: it's a major leap in performance over past Intel NUCs, and at this point in time there's nothing else on the market that's going to be able to match its performance and features in such a small form factor.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
124 Comments
View All Comments
eva02langley - Friday, March 30, 2018 - link
"So, tell me why I am wrong in saying that the Intel iGPU is miles ahead of the Radeon Vega ?"Because it can render games at 1080p...? This is seriously a question?
This is actually incredible to see iGPU able to do that. And we forget at this time the PS4 and the Xbox One X capabilities.
This is not a discrete GPU.
The_Assimilator - Monday, April 2, 2018 - link
Way to take Ganesh's statement out of context to push in your own VEGA UBER ALLES viewpoint. He was very obviously talking about the video playback capabilities of Vega, which are objectively inferior to Intel's.Hifihedgehog - Friday, March 30, 2018 - link
As a neutral industry observer myself, I have had to build with discrete graphics in ITX cases (with both Intel and AMD CPUs) because of the timing and handshaking issues of Intel NUCs’ DP-to-HDMI converters. I have no major qualms with Intel as CPU company; it is their graphics solutions that I am not fond of and well familiar with as being compromised.ganeshts - Friday, March 30, 2018 - link
Not denying that the NUC's HDMI ports have some compatibility issues, but, to their credit, they have been very responsive and tried to figure out fixes (I spent almost 6 months last year trying to get their KBL NUC to work with the 4K TV in my testbed).Every vendor has some problem or the other. In my experience, NVIDIA has one of the best generic solutions for multimedia systems, but, Intel wins out in niche use-cases (YouTube HDR, for example). Less said about AMD, the better - their drivers for multimedia functions turned from good to bad to worse, and I don't think I have done any HTPC testing on AMD GPU-based system in the last couple of years - they basically haven't released anything competitive in that segment, to be honest. Hopefully, that changes with the Ryzen APUs, but, I can't say for sure unless it undergoes a thorough evaluation.
Multiple readers email me with request for guidance on what to buy from a HTPC perspective. In most cases, I point them towards some NUC-based solution. Feedback after purchase has never been negative.
Hifihedgehog - Friday, March 30, 2018 - link
“Less said about AMD, the better - their drivers for multimedia functions turned from good to bad to worse,”Please qualify this with an example. I and others at SmallFormFactor forums are using the Raven Ridge APUs, and I have had no issues with Kodi, MPC-BE and MadVR for 12-bit UHD home theater duty. Saying current generation AMD graphics drivers are bad and worse is just as inaccurate as saying Intel HD Graphics are good for nothing except Solitaire—both signify naïveté with either products.
“In most cases, I point them towards some NUC-based solution. Feedback after purchase has never been negative.”
I kindly point you to this thread, 674 replies and counting, responses comprised mostly of complaints. There have been droves of disgruntled NUC users this last generation. Intel NUCs have been awful, and many have abandoned them for alternative small form factor products.
communities (dot) intel (dot) com/message/490689#490689
ganeshts - Friday, March 30, 2018 - link
Example, right now with Vega GPU in Hades Canyon :Use VLC 3.0.1 with default preferences on Windows 10 latest stable release and attempt to play
back an interlaced MPEG2 clip - the video output is blank and only the audio plays. The same scenario in systems using the KBL iGPU or NVIDIA GPUs is absolutely fine.
Now, if the VLC developers have to do something special to make code that works for both Intel iGPU and NVIDIA GPU, I have to unfortunately say it is AMD's driver that is at fault for having undefined behavior in their video decode acceleration or rendering API.
If you play only one type of codec and it works great for that, it doesn't mean the drivers are flawless.
AMD drivers were good when their PR team was trying to promote the HQV benchmark for the HTPC market. They started turning bad around the AMD 7000 series where their DXVA APIs used to result in BSODs when people attempted to use them. And, after that, I got disillusioned with AMD's GPU for HTPC duties and stopped recommending them. Ryzen might be different - I haven't tested it yet. But, based on my experience in Hades Canyon, I am not very bullish.
NUC-based, from my perspective, is any UCFF PC based on the -U series. In the KBL-U generation, my first recommendation has always been the ASRock Beebox-S 7200U, followed by the NUC7i7BNH : Both of them have got very good feedback from people I recommended them to. Btw, the incompatibility issue that I had with the NUC7i7BNH and the TCL 55P607 in HDR mode was actually fixed after a silent firmware update on the TV side. The blame is not on one supplier (holding no torch for Intel here, I am just saying that no one manufacturer can be blamed all the time).
Hifihedgehog - Saturday, March 31, 2018 - link
VLC is well-known to be a overly processor intensive program (or CPU hog; see here: pcworld (dot) com/article/3023430/hardware/tested-vlc-vs-windows-10-video-player-the-winner-may-surprise-you.html ) and due to this in more recent years, many videophiles moved along to MPC-HC and MPC-BE. I do not understand why many computer geeks still insist on it. I have used the MPC twin programs for over five years now and have had no issues for codec usage with either, which rely on LAV filters. Last I used VLC, it used more than double the CPU usage, it had worse image scaling than the forks of MPC, and file support was just as good if not superior. Honestly, VLC was a great solution a decade ago, but times have changed and I now highly recommend and always use the MPC products. I cannot see any reason why to insist on VLC at this point especially with the problems you mention which I never encountered in the MPC forked projects.Hifihedgehog - Saturday, March 31, 2018 - link
PS:techhive (dot) com/article/2892383/which-is-the-better-free-video-player-mpc-hc-176-vs-vlc-22.html
reddit (dot) com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/43do0n/is_anyone_still_using_vlc_if_thats_the_case/
Hifihedgehog - Saturday, March 31, 2018 - link
videohelp (dot) com/softwareimages/madvr_1196.jpgganeshts - Saturday, March 31, 2018 - link
All those references to VLC are pre-3.0 release. With 3.0, VLC had a major overhaul. That is the reason why I never touched VLC in my earlier systems reviews, but started doing so with the ones from this month.https://www.videolan.org/vlc/releases/3.0.0.html
The new release is very power efficient - as good as a lean MPC-HC + LAV Filters configuration. I believe they have done an excellent job, and will be using VLC moving forward (in addition to Kodi and MPC-HC / madVR).
Like it or not, it is the geeks and the nerds who use MPC-HC. The mass market still uses Kodi and VLC (despite the latter's inefficiencies pre-3.0).