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small form factor PC – Intel has resolved the one issue that has always dogged these NUCs: these days the GPU will go out of date long before the CPU will.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

  • Deicidium369 - Saturday, April 18, 2020 - link

    No, Jimmy it's not made to impress you, I could not care less about what you think. The point is that I am not an Intel fanboy - I prefer Intel AFTER taking the best AMD has to offer in consideration. For that year back when the AMD Athlon 2400XP (pretty sure that was the model) I was sure my next PC would be AMD also - then Core dropped ... and the Sun set on that idea.

    So when Ryzen released - I put together a 1700 system, It was OK but not great - good for budget builds. The 2700X was very good, few issues, good performance, paired that with a Vega VII - and that was just meh. The 3950 is not bad, but nothing special - I do not have any use for a HEDT system - we migrated from LGA2011v3 to Intel Scalable Xeon for our engineering workstations - although the 2nd socket never got populated - still was the solid choice.

    You should try to add something other than being a reflexive little troll - all you do, as does qasar is to call people fanboys - but ALL you add to the conversation is calling other people fanboy - when you 2 are the biggest fanboys I have run into. Kiddies you shouldn't be putting so much of your own self worth into what some corporation is doing - maybe when you get older you will get some perspective - back in my day I fought the Mac vs Atari ST vs Amiga wars, and later the Netscape vs IE wars - so I understand the mentality - but that 30 years ago.

    Now run along, Jimmy and clean the basement.

    Yeah you mean the guy who could not find the slide that said full scene RT in the cloud? Replied with the Slide that he could not find - and he later PM'd me, And still did not refute a single thing I said. So fight your own battles.
  • Korguz - Sunday, April 19, 2020 - link

    " I am not an Intel fanboy " yea right, your post reek of it, even though you keep saying other wise.

    and in return, all you do is call people names and insult them cause all you have left, you cant give proof of ANYTHING you say, cause it is all your personal opinion and bias. thats funny, seems a of people refuted what you said, even Johan. what the point of calling me jimmy anyway, does it make you feel better about yourself some how ?
  • Korguz - Sunday, April 19, 2020 - link

    and your " facts " are still BS, thats why you havent replied to that thread, or the one on tom's, cause you have nothing.
    "You should try to add something other than being a reflexive little troll " and so should you, try posting some links or sources to back up what you say. " but ALL you add to the conversation is calling other people fanboy " and all you do is instult people and call them names, point is ?
    " Kiddies you shouldn't be putting so much of your own self worth into what some corporation is doing " ha, you should talk. looks like you were refuted on tom's so you came here to spread your BS instead.
  • Korguz - Sunday, April 19, 2020 - link

    johan = jarred
  • Operandi - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link

    LOL, and you think this is going to sell?

    If this thing wasn't over priced at least the vast majority of the work of building a SFC system would be done and that would be small win. Still wildly inferior to what you can do with off the shelf iTX hardware (Intel or AMD, dosn't mater) but it would be something. As it is this a over priced cluster fuck disaster of a design that dose nothing you can't do with off the shelf parts. Good job Intel.
  • Deicidium369 - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link

    I honestly have NO CLUE what the exact use case for this system is - Intel calls it a NUC - I DO NOT consider this to be a NUC system... Again, no clue.
  • Korguz - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link

    " work on something that would, you know, sell. " that implies you think this would sell.
  • Deicidium369 - Sunday, April 19, 2020 - link

    Jimmy - go clean the basement. You seem to be following me - look bud - I don't care what you are into, I am married and your obvious infatuation is starting to creep me out. Seriously - stay away.
  • Korguz - Sunday, April 19, 2020 - link

    of frank, when i am done that, i will help you clean out the garage. cause obviously, you are incapable of that
  • Spunjji - Friday, April 24, 2020 - link

    Your posts here are the worst. 🤦‍♂️

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now