Alphacool EISBAER Ex BLACK LCS review
Netgear Nighthawk AX12 Wi-Fi 6 router review
Corsair HS60 PRO Surround Headset Review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 Gaming X review
Team Group Cardea II NVMe 1 TB SSD Review
ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming ITX/TB3 review
Promo: URCDKey Autumn Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Patriot P200 1TB SATA3 SSD Review
ASRock Radeon RX 5700 XT Taichi OC+ review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - September 2019
Intel launches Hades Canyon NUC with built in RX Vega
Intel NUCs are tiny but powerful mini-PCs. Their popularity has rapidly increased since Intel introduced them in 2012. People use the Intel NUC, an acronym for Next Unit of Computing.
Intel launched its most powerful Intel NUC to date, based on the newly announced 8th Gen Intel Core i7 processor with Radeon RX Vega M graphics with its 1280 shader processors. The new Intel NUC (formerly code-named Hades Canyon) brings this powerful new processor and graphics solution into a tiny 1.20-liter system.
The NUC 8i 7 HVK" (939 US dollars) has a with Core i7 8809 G (4 cores / 8 threads / max 4.20 GHz) or alternatively the Core i7 - 8705 G (4 cores / 8 threads / max 4.10 GHz) model NUC 8 i 7 HNK (769 USD). The units have 6 graphics outputs including miniDisplayPort ×2, HDMI ×2, Thunderbolt 3 ×2. Built-in Intel Wireless-AC 8265 module supports 802.11ac wireless LAN and Bluetooth 4.2.
The new NUC will come in two versions: NUC8i7HVK and NUC8i7HNK.
- The NUC8i7HVK is based on the unlocked version of the new 8th Gen Intel Core processor with the Radeon RX Vega M GH graphics, giving overclockers1 the ability to take the system to higher levels.
- The NUC8i7HNK uses the 8th Gen Intel Core processor with the Radeon RX Vega M GL graphics.
Intel Launches two NUC barebones based on Gemini Lake - 03/08/2018 09:07 AM
Intel Launches two NUC barebone kits, the NUC 7PJYH / NUC 7CJYH and are both equipped with a dual-core Pentium Pentium J4005 or J5005 Gemini Lake SoC, supporting screen resolutions up-to Ultra HD....
Intel Launches 2.5" U2 and M2 8TB enterprise SSDs - 02/16/2018 09:57 AM
Well, at least we can say, that's a proper SSD size. Intel released its DC P4510 series of SSDs, fitted with 64-layer Vertically Stacked TLC NAND. These enterprise storage units have storage capacit...
Intel Launches its Core i3-8130U Mobile CPU - 02/13/2018 09:39 AM
Intel is expanding the performance options available for mainstream laptops and 2 in 1s with the 8th Gen Intel Core i3 processor. The new Intel Core i3-8130U features 2 cores and 4 threads, up to 3.4 ...
Intel Launches Xeon D-2100 Processors with up to 18 cores and 36 threads - 02/07/2018 05:58 PM
Intel just announced a new series of Xeon D SoCs for servers, these are based on Skylake-SP architecture. The flagship SoC would be the Xeon D-2191 which gets whopping 18 cores and 36 threads. The X...
Intel Launches NUC8i7HVK and NUC8i7HNK NUC - 01/08/2018 11:13 AM
Intel launched the latest Intel NUCs, based on the newly announced 8th Gen Intel Core i7 processor with Radeon RX Vega M graphics. The new Intel NUC (formerly code-named Hades Canyon) brings this powe...
besthijacker
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 2018-03-20
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 2018-03-20
#5529640 Posted on: 03/20/2018 12:27 PM
Any idea where I can buy this ?
Any idea where I can buy this ?
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9737
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 9737
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5529679 Posted on: 03/20/2018 03:06 PM
It is good looking, but APU with similar CPU performance (and proportionally weaker GPU) can be had for 1/2 of price.
But it is still great looking and cool system. This is exactly design I wanted in notebooks. One small PCB with everything needed, a lot of space for battery. No wasted space with additional mGPU.
I am sure a lot of people will like it.
It is good looking, but APU with similar CPU performance (and proportionally weaker GPU) can be had for 1/2 of price.
But it is still great looking and cool system. This is exactly design I wanted in notebooks. One small PCB with everything needed, a lot of space for battery. No wasted space with additional mGPU.
I am sure a lot of people will like it.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4422
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4422
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5529692 Posted on: 03/20/2018 03:44 PM
A bit odd that the graphics in this is better than the graphics offerings from AMD's own lineup, at least currently (I'm sure if a 2500G comes out, it'll be as good or better). But, as good as the specs are, this is a bit expensive. For that price, I'd rather get a laptop with similar specs. At least then speakers, a display, keyboard, trackpad, and battery would be included.
A bit odd that the graphics in this is better than the graphics offerings from AMD's own lineup, at least currently (I'm sure if a 2500G comes out, it'll be as good or better). But, as good as the specs are, this is a bit expensive. For that price, I'd rather get a laptop with similar specs. At least then speakers, a display, keyboard, trackpad, and battery would be included.
ruthan
Senior Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 2016-05-24
Senior Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 2016-05-24
#5529703 Posted on: 03/20/2018 04:20 PM
TDP 100W it will be noisy.. I would like to see good GPUs in 35W or 65W TPD package.
TDP 100W it will be noisy.. I would like to see good GPUs in 35W or 65W TPD package.
Noisiv
Senior Member
Posts: 6655
Joined: 2010-11-16
Senior Member
Posts: 6655
Joined: 2010-11-16
#5529726 Posted on: 03/20/2018 05:06 PM
Awesome little machine. Pricey, but I can see this selling well.
I think AMD might have shot themselves in the foot...
There is a 65W version...
A fully passive design, that's what I REALLY want to see.
If it's something like 10-15W in notebooks, should be doable at 50W in NUC
Awesome little machine. Pricey, but I can see this selling well.
I think AMD might have shot themselves in the foot...
TDP 100W it will be noisy.. I would like to see good GPUs in 35W or 65W TPD package.
There is a 65W version...
A fully passive design, that's what I REALLY want to see.
If it's something like 10-15W in notebooks, should be doable at 50W in NUC
DeskStar
Senior Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 2011-01-11
Senior Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 2011-01-11
#5529753 Posted on: 03/20/2018 06:30 PM
Nice..... I would love to see the performance numbers on this bad boy.... Especially how it will keep that thermal throttling from being an issue for reaching that higher end performance they're touting from this particular hardware.
Cooling....cooling....cooling is what I want to know about....
Nice..... I would love to see the performance numbers on this bad boy.... Especially how it will keep that thermal throttling from being an issue for reaching that higher end performance they're touting from this particular hardware.
Cooling....cooling....cooling is what I want to know about....
Pinscher
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 2017-04-11
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 2017-04-11
#5529832 Posted on: 03/20/2018 09:39 PM
I think AMD might have shot themselves in the foot...
It seems a few people have this sentiment, though AMD is selling GPU dies to Intel and anyone buying the Intel/AMD GPU solution is going to be paying an arm and a leg for system.
AMD APU with Vega is still cheaper and very cost effective which is why I don't share this sentiment. Sure the CPU isn't as good and the GPU is a bit smaller, but like you said it's gonna be like 1/2 the price.
On the other hand, if you want the best, Intel just provided it.
I think AMD might have shot themselves in the foot...
It seems a few people have this sentiment, though AMD is selling GPU dies to Intel and anyone buying the Intel/AMD GPU solution is going to be paying an arm and a leg for system.
AMD APU with Vega is still cheaper and very cost effective which is why I don't share this sentiment. Sure the CPU isn't as good and the GPU is a bit smaller, but like you said it's gonna be like 1/2 the price.
On the other hand, if you want the best, Intel just provided it.
Dazz
Senior Member
Posts: 812
Joined: 2001-08-12
Senior Member
Posts: 812
Joined: 2001-08-12
#5529914 Posted on: 03/21/2018 02:24 AM
It seems a few people have this sentiment, though AMD is selling GPU dies to Intel and anyone buying the Intel/AMD GPU solution is going to be paying an arm and a leg for system.
AMD APU with Vega is still cheaper and very cost effective which is why I don't share this sentiment. Sure the CPU isn't as good and the GPU is a bit smaller, but like you said it's gonna be like 1/2 the price.
On the other hand, if you want the best, Intel just provided it.
I agree nearly 800 USD just for these two is alot, since the 2500U is what 150USD?
It seems a few people have this sentiment, though AMD is selling GPU dies to Intel and anyone buying the Intel/AMD GPU solution is going to be paying an arm and a leg for system.
AMD APU with Vega is still cheaper and very cost effective which is why I don't share this sentiment. Sure the CPU isn't as good and the GPU is a bit smaller, but like you said it's gonna be like 1/2 the price.
On the other hand, if you want the best, Intel just provided it.
I agree nearly 800 USD just for these two is alot, since the 2500U is what 150USD?
Killian38
Senior Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 2017-09-02
Senior Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 2017-09-02
#5529917 Posted on: 03/21/2018 02:41 AM
At that price, it's junk.
At that price, it's junk.
rhysiam
Junior Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 2016-01-05
Junior Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 2016-01-05
#5529947 Posted on: 03/21/2018 05:34 AM
I think those confused as to why AMD would allow Intel to "compete" with their own APUs are underestimating the GPU power in these new Intel packages. These solutions have 24 & 20 CUs respectively in a 100W TDP with 4GB of HBM2 onboard. Compare that to the 11 & 8 CUs in AMD's APU offerings, with a 65W TDP and dependence on standard DDR4 RAM. It's clear that the Intel "G" and AMD "G" series products are in totally different tiers of performance and price. They only compete like the RX580 "competes" with the 1080ti. Some buyers may consider both, but many (most?) buyers will come it with a ballpark budget and/or ballpark performance requirements in mind and only genuinely consider the tier of products that meet their needs/align with their budget.
The second question is why AMD didn't provide a product in this tier themselves. AMD could, no doubt, deliver something like a Ryzen 7 2700G with ~100W TDP, a larger GPU and on-package HBM2. Just to put this into perspective though, AMD's entire Ryzen based lineup come from the grand total of just 2 different die designs. The Ryzen 3 1200 right through Threadripper and EPYC products are all built from between one and four of the original "zen" dies that first appeared in the Ryzen 7 1800X, featuring 8 cores across 2 CCXs with no GPU. AMD's second and final current die design is then used for their mobile (15W) and desktop APU linups featuring a 4 core, single CCX CPU with an 11CU (?) Vega GPU. Obviously lower tier products get cut down, but the point is, there's only 2 unique dies used for AMD's entire Ryzen based lineup of products. Producing a high end APU with onboard HBM2 would require a third design. Sure it would be a competitive and interesting product, but considering design #1 & #2 have resulted in competitive products ranging from 15-180W and $100 - $4200, AMD would likely want something more versatile from design #3 than a niche product like a high end APU with onboard HBM. Intel, on the other hand, have greater market share and vastly more engineering resources, so they're in a much better position to custom design dies for relatively niche products like this. Better for AMD, it would seem, to allow Intel to own that market segment by selling them your product and focus your limited resources on more versatile designs.
I think those confused as to why AMD would allow Intel to "compete" with their own APUs are underestimating the GPU power in these new Intel packages. These solutions have 24 & 20 CUs respectively in a 100W TDP with 4GB of HBM2 onboard. Compare that to the 11 & 8 CUs in AMD's APU offerings, with a 65W TDP and dependence on standard DDR4 RAM. It's clear that the Intel "G" and AMD "G" series products are in totally different tiers of performance and price. They only compete like the RX580 "competes" with the 1080ti. Some buyers may consider both, but many (most?) buyers will come it with a ballpark budget and/or ballpark performance requirements in mind and only genuinely consider the tier of products that meet their needs/align with their budget.
The second question is why AMD didn't provide a product in this tier themselves. AMD could, no doubt, deliver something like a Ryzen 7 2700G with ~100W TDP, a larger GPU and on-package HBM2. Just to put this into perspective though, AMD's entire Ryzen based lineup come from the grand total of just 2 different die designs. The Ryzen 3 1200 right through Threadripper and EPYC products are all built from between one and four of the original "zen" dies that first appeared in the Ryzen 7 1800X, featuring 8 cores across 2 CCXs with no GPU. AMD's second and final current die design is then used for their mobile (15W) and desktop APU linups featuring a 4 core, single CCX CPU with an 11CU (?) Vega GPU. Obviously lower tier products get cut down, but the point is, there's only 2 unique dies used for AMD's entire Ryzen based lineup of products. Producing a high end APU with onboard HBM2 would require a third design. Sure it would be a competitive and interesting product, but considering design #1 & #2 have resulted in competitive products ranging from 15-180W and $100 - $4200, AMD would likely want something more versatile from design #3 than a niche product like a high end APU with onboard HBM. Intel, on the other hand, have greater market share and vastly more engineering resources, so they're in a much better position to custom design dies for relatively niche products like this. Better for AMD, it would seem, to allow Intel to own that market segment by selling them your product and focus your limited resources on more versatile designs.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2626
Joined: 2014-10-20
Would love one of those at work.