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a small form factor PC – Intel has resolved the one issue that has always dogged these NUCs: these days the GPU will go out of date long before the CPU will.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

  • PeachNCream - Thursday, April 16, 2020 - link

    NUCs have usually had a bit of a markup, but the price here is quite a bit higher than one would expect.
  • Deicidium369 - Thursday, April 16, 2020 - link

    I don't consider this a NUC, even though Intel puts it in that category - same thing with the ones with the skulls on them... the standard 4.5"x4.5" are the only ones I consider a NUC. Not really sure what the use case for this machine is.
  • PeachNCream - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link

    I agree with you all around. This is far different than the goals Intel originally set out to attain with the NUC form factor. It's Intel's objective and the company can do whatever it wants with the name, slapping it on a super computer for all I care, but that doesn't mean we are compelled to acknowledge it in the same way we would prior designs.

    The use case for it - a small form factor system used for gaming or GPU-based graphics work is certainly the intent. The problem is the pricing is way off as a lot of others have pointed out so the same goals could be accomplished in a similar, but slightly larger system for considerably lower cost.

    This seems like a Google-style thought experiment that some employee or team dreamed up. it got approved and is on sale. If subsequent generations are not sold in the future, we will know it didn't get close to projections or targets.
  • Deicidium369 - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link

    I have over 60 of these deployed in my business offices. I fabricate a 4.5" x ~11" piece of stainless steel - each end is drilled with the 100mm VESA bolt pattern. There are 2 90deg brakes (bends). 1 end in sandwiched between the monitor stand and monitor - other side the NUC mounting bracket is bolted. Short (12") DP and USB cables connect NUC to monitor - sourced a 100W power brick (Intel ships a variety of designs. some with convex sides) that is rectangular - with a standard 3pin AC jack and a barrel DC jack. Y splitter for the AC power - 1 to monitor other to power brick, and a 12" DC cable. So, coming up from the wallplate is 1 AC power cable & 1 CAT6e cable

    Makes an all in 1 - usecase doesn't require a desktop PC - even a normal SFF one. My employees can choose wired or wireless Microsoft keybd/mice. Keeps it super neat and super clean.

    When I started to migrate those people to work at home, made the move super easy - and didn't require one of my IT staff to handle the moves - the Palo Alto Networks VPN Endpoint was preconfigured, so just plug in the desktop and the IP Phone, and they were up an running again.

    I have 3 generations of units - about half are the oldest - the real NUC Tiger Lake will replace them all (not running into issues with compute power - but the iGPU struggles with dual 2560 or 4K monitors. 32GB + Samsung 512GB or 1TB NVME - no 2.5"
  • Icehawk - Saturday, April 18, 2020 - link

    Take a look at Dell’s 7070 Ultra. It’s basically a monitor stand, combine with a USB-C monitor and it’s very sleek. I work for a mid sized bank and will be deploying these in the future in our branches where before we used mini-PCs VESA mounted. Much cleaner and enterprise pricing is good.
  • Deicidium369 - Saturday, April 18, 2020 - link

    Thank's for the information - I actually bought one soon after they were released and evaluated as a replacement for the 35 or so NUCs I had installed at the time. There were manufacturing defects or issues, and had to send the eval unit back twice. By December, I had to purchase machines, as the business was expanding - and just couldn't, at that point, consider the Dell an option. The processing power at the time was pretty well evenly matched - the dual channel memory in the NUCs wasn't a huge advantage in testing. and the NVMe speed was comparable. So from a performance standpoint, they were pretty evenly matched - one of the main big features that was lacking in the Dell was the IGP - I had thought that instead of Comet Lake we would have gotten Ice Lake. Our workflow is pretty mundane - Word Excel Outlook and Chrome... So at this point the big reason for sticking with the NUCs is the "ecosystem" I have built around them - when we do replace with the Tiger Lake NUCs later this year, will be pretty well painless.
  • ingwe - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link

    Yeah the pricing is crazy. Which is disappointing because I think it is a pretty neat concept and I would love something like this from AMD.
  • Deicidium369 - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link

    AMD sells CPU and GPU - nothing else.
  • Sailor23M - Saturday, April 18, 2020 - link

    Agree, Intel has lost it way with the NUCs. They should be in the $500-$999 range, come with best embedded graphics that Intel can provide with lots of ports. Not sure who is excited about $3000 SFF box.
  • Qasar - Saturday, April 18, 2020 - link

    intel has lost its way in alot more then just nucs. it lost its way 5-7 years ago when it thought ot was unbeatable, and kept rehashing the same cpu over and over.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now