Concluding Remarks

Following on the trail of Skull Canyon and Hades Canyon, Intel's Ghost Canyon NUC (NUC9i9QNX) is the latest and greatest performance-oriented mini-PC to come out of the company. A love letter of sorts to enthusiasts who want it all in a mini-PC, it's improved on Intel's earlier designs in a number of ways, making it perhaps the best high-performance NUC yet. In particular, by putting in enough room for a standard PCIe video card – but without making the NUC itself so large that it ceases to be a small form factor PC – Intel has resolved the one issue that has always dogged these NUCs: these days the GPU will go out of date long before the CPU will. All of which has made for one of the most interesting SFF PCs we've looked at in some time.

Overall, Ghost Canyon has given us with the opportunity to evaluate a sub-5L SFF PC sporting a user-replaceable discrete GPU. Intel's specific review sample configuration has also allowed us to explore the effect of the PCIe link width on various GPU workloads and get an idea of the increased responsiveness of the system when the primary storage drive is directly attached to the CPU and not bottlenecked by the DMI link. The pros and cons of the NUC9i9QNX are summarized below:

Pros:

  • The NUC 9 Extreme Kits are completely unique systems unparalleled in terms of performance potential in the sub-5L chassis volume category
  • The system design of the NUC9i9QNX allows for a sustained 65W processor package power dissipation, ensuring that workloads can take full advantage of all eight physical cores at good clock rates
  • The current NUC 9 Extreme Kits cover all bases in terms of I/O for almost every market segment, with the Compute Element alone providing more I/O capabilities compared to any other off-the-shelf SFF PC currently in the market
  • The Wi-Fi antenna pigtail connectors on the Compute Element are vastly improved compared to the previous NUC boards. The shifting of the coaxial receptacle connector to the MMCX Micromate style makes it easier to affix and have a more secure connection to the board as well as the chassis.
  • The components of the NUC 9 Extreme Kits can be upgraded independent of each other. The discrete GPU / PCIe add-in cards make up a significant chunk of the upgrades made to a desktop PC over its lifetime. The Compute Element initiative makes that a simple affair
  • The NUC 9 Extreme Kits belongs to the rare breed of SFF PCs that support switchable graphics. For example, all six display outputs from the Hades Canyon NUC are driven by the Radeon GPU, and the case with the ZBOX MAGNUS SFF PCs is similar. The NUC9i9QNX allows simultaneous usage of display outputs from both the integrated GPU as well as the discrete one

Cons:

  • The cramming of a large number of components in a tight space throws challenges in cable management
  • The front I/O ports of the NUC 9 Extreme Kits are sourced off a hub chip on a separate daughterboard. The cable linking the Compute Element to the daughterboard may easily get unseated during dGPU installation, leading the hub to operate at USB 2.0 speeds (this was the case in our review sample until a full disassembly and reassembly was done. The process restored the advertised USB 3.1 Gen 2 operation)
  • Ease of installation has been a hallmark of all the NUC kits from Intel so far. The need to keep things as small as possible means that the NUC 9 Extreme Kits end up making some compromises in this aspect. In particular, scenarios where a discrete GPU needs to be installed in the cramped space are a bit of challenge
  • Long-term thermals in dusty environments may be of concern. Quick cleaning access to the fan in the Compute Element is not available when a discrete GPU is installed
  • The 35W+ idle power consumption of the NUC9i9QNX review configuration is a tad too high for traditional NUC enthusiasts used to sub-10W idling numbers (even accounting for a discrete GPU in the mix)
  • The x8 vs. x16 PCIe link width tradeoff for the discrete GPU is a tough choice to make. With the current configuration of the NUC 9 Extreme Kits, we either get increased system responsiveness or better performance for GPU compute workloads, but not both at the same time

The Ghost Canyon NUC9i9QNX is a SFF enthusiast's dream come true. The NUC 9 Extreme Kits completely re-define the standard for other SFF PCs in the market. Beyond the product itself, the ecosystem that Intel is slowly developing around the Compute Element initiative holds importance in the longer term. Getting add-in card vendors to design for a compact chassis with well-defined requirements is a great first step. Moving forward, we would like to see some innovation around power delivery from the PSU to various build components. If we were to be given a choice of one thing that could be fixed in the NUC 9 Extreme kits, it is the elimination of the sea of PSU cables and the associated volume requirements / management headache.

The NUC9i9QNX review sample configuration allowed us to explore the benefits of attaching Optane storage directly to the CPU without the DMI limitations. However, we also saw that the operation of the GPU in x8 mode instead of x16 resulted in noticable penalties for GPU-intensive workstation workloads. Fortunately, gaming workloads were much milder, and only saw a difference of a few FPS. These two sets of observations make us yearn for Thunderbolt 3 and M.2 PCIe x4 ports directly attached to the CPU in addition to dedicating a x16 link for the GPU. An upgrade of the gigabit ports to NBASE-T would also be welcome. Some items in this wish-list are already in Intel's future roadmap. Hopefully, we will be seeing all these in future Compute Elements. The initiative replaces the socketed CPU currently identified as the core of a DIY desktop upgrade with an 'add-in card' form-factor Compute Element.


Discrete GPUs in SFF PCs - The NUC9i9QNX (L) and the Zotac ZBOX MAGNUS EK71080 (R)

The OEM perspective is also an interesting aspect. Prior to the launch of the first NUC UCFF PC, vendors like Zotac had been playing around with slightly larger mini-PCs such as the MAG-ND01 (a 7in x 7in board compared to the NUC's 4in x 4in size). The launch of the Ghost Canyon NUC kits reminds us of the same. Zotac was one of the first vendors to put a discrete user-replaceable GPU in a ~5L chassis in the ZBOX MAGNUS EK71080 (though they didn't advertise the user-replaceable part to end-users). Intel has now managed to integrate similar capabilities in a more compact chassis.

In both the original NUC and the current Compute Element initiative, it has come down to Intel to take a proof-of-concept from one of its OEM partners and develop it along with the ecosystem necessary to make the product take off in the market. The emergence of the NUC enabled vendors like ASUS, MSI, ASRock, and Zotac to create and widely market their own UCFF systems.

But if we're to repeat that here, then in the context of the Compute Element initiative, what role would such vendors have? We have already seen ASUS create an add-in card specifically catering to the NUC 9 Extreme Kits. GIGABYTE and MSI apparently have similar GPU cards in the pipeline. Many chassis vendors have also signed up to create Compute Element-compatible cases. However, it remains to be seen whether board and system vendors like ASRock and Zotac plan to create their own Compute Element-like products and whether they would be able to take advantage of the ecosystem that Intel is developing. As an example, the current Compute Elements don't have a NBASE-T port. It could be interesting if Intel allows its partners to create their own Compute Element with a NBASE-T port, or, say, a USB 3.1 Gen 2x2 port. When Intel shifts to NBASE-T in their own Compute Element lineup, Intel's partners could offer 10GBASE-T or additional Thunderbolt ports. Or, to dream boldy, perhaps an AMD Renoir-based Compute Element in the near term from these vendors?

Overall, the great performance profile of the NUC9i9QNX is only a small part of the equation. The NUC demonstrates Intel's vision for the bulk of the desktop PC market moving forward, albeit in a product that's premium in everything from performance to build to pricing. The latter of those suits Intel for now, but it is almost certainly leaving a much larger market unserved.

Currently, the lowest-priced Ghost Canyon board is the $664 NUC9i5QNB, while the $1553 NUC9i9QNX we looked at today uses the $1274 NUC9i9QNB board. We can totally imagine a user buying a Ghost Canyon kit chassis with a lower performance Compute Element (at, say, $300 to $500) and moving to a higher performance Compute Element a year or two down the line. In that context, we believe Intel (or its partners) should start catering to a wider range of price points. Assuming that Intel can build upon upon its initial success with the Compute Element initiative, the future of the desktop PC market does look bright.

 
Miscellaneous Aspects: Storage Performance
Comments Locked

109 Comments

View All Comments

  • timecop1818 - Thursday, April 16, 2020 - link

    Really bad selection of pictures. Did you not actually have a unit with you when reviewing? There's no external shots, there's no pics of the board/GPU connected together, there's no pics of rear backplane with ports/whatever, basically no useful info. I clicked through the gallery and I have no idea how big this thing is, or how the GPU fits into the picture, or anything else. Even "setup notes" page shows nothing useful.
  • DanNeely - Thursday, April 16, 2020 - link

    The chassis gallery on the 1st page shows the fully assembled system with the rear IO ports visible and gives a decent visual idea of how big the system is.
  • timecop1818 - Thursday, April 16, 2020 - link

    Oh hey, I see the stuff now. There's separate galleries throughout the article, for some reason I thought there was only one per page, and the 1st page only showed disassembled cpu module so I thought that was it. Thanks for pointing it out.
  • FireSnake - Thursday, April 16, 2020 - link

    Based on this:
    https://www.notebookcheck.net/AnandTech-editor-rep...
    they are not getting any money from me!
    For a loooong looong time (those includd too).
  • bug77 - Thursday, April 16, 2020 - link

    It's a good thing you don't get hung up on details like proof and stuff. Guilty until proven innocent, eh? (And yes, I know history doesn't work in their favor.)
  • DigitalFreak - Thursday, April 16, 2020 - link

    Ian doesn't seem like the person to throw around baseless accusations.
  • ganeshts - Thursday, April 16, 2020 - link

    The tweet has been misinterpreted and now taken a completely unintended shape of its own. Ian plans to clarify the usage of the word 'incentive' in the context in an upcoming video / post.

    FWIW, if anyone believe AMD doesn't offer incentives to its partners (of a type similar to what Intel does, and what is completely legal), then the person has no idea of how the technology industry / silicon vendors operate.

    If anyone thinks the reason for lack of high-performance AMD-based (read, Renoir) 'NUC's is Intel, then I have a bridge to sell. No one is preventing AMD from creating a reference design for a Renoir-based 4x4 board or innovate with Compute Element-like products. OEMs can take the plunge only if the silicon vendors offer them a proof of concept. If a Renoir NUC reference design exists, but OEMs still don't pick it up to offer them in the market, that would be worthy of deeper investigation (that could still throw up legitimate reasons).
  • Namisecond - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link

    Even when reference designs exist, availability of parts can come into play, or even OEM disinterest.
  • quadrivial - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link

    AMD has reference designs and an entire set of embedded Zen 1 chips made explicitly for that purpose. Udoo Bolt was kickstarted by a fairly small company. If they could do it, why not bigger companies?
  • arashi - Saturday, April 18, 2020 - link

    You must understand that Intel PR and legal has been in touch.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now