In the lab: Intel’s NUC8i7HVK “Hades Canyon” gaming PC

It's still a bit hard to believe that Intel's eighth-generation G-series processors are a real thing. The unholy union of an Intel CPU and a Radeon graphics processor scored a couple design wins in laptops when it debuted back at CES, but the most intriguing home for that chip at the show was Intel's own Hades Canyon NUC. One of those systems hit my doorstep a couple days ago, and I've been deep into testing it since. Say hello to Intel's highest-performance Hades Canyon system, also known as the NUC8i7HVK.

Although our full review with frame-time data is still in progress, I'm pleased to report that Intel has struck the difficult balance of making a tiny gaming system that's both quiet and fast. Although the NUC8i7HVK doesn't always produce 60 FPS gameplay at 1920×1080 with high (or better) settings in the range of titles we're testing, it comes close enough and does it smoothly enough that I'm prepared to call it a remarkable achievement in performance-per-liter. At the same time, $999 for a barebones system that still needs hundreds of dollars of storage, memory, and software to run may give even the most dedicated small-PC enthusiasts pause. Stay tuned as we hash out our full impressions of our time in Hades Canyon.

Comments closed
    • Voldenuit
    • 2 years ago

    Benchmarks are out at [url=https://www.anandtech.com/show/12572/the-intel-hades-canyon-nuc8i7hvk-review-kaby-lakeg-benchmarked/4<]anandtech[/url<] and [url=https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Intel-NUC8i7HVK-Review-Vega-takes-trip-Hades-Canyon/Graphics-Comparison<]pcper[/url<]. I must say it fell below even my expectations, hewing closer to a GTX 1050Ti than a GTX 1060. And under load, it draws more power than a 1050Ti, no thanks to Vega (although I expect the lower end Vega M GL parts going into laptops to be more power-frugal). It really seems like a whole lot of effort for and much ado about nothing.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 2 years ago

      Those comparison points are super weird. For Anandtech it’s because of what mini boxes they’ve tested. Nothing with a 1060 or a 1050Ti. Nothing else with a Radeon at all. For PCPer it’s because they tested so very little. Their comparison points made a little sense, at least.

        • Voldenuit
        • 2 years ago

        Yeah, the tests are a bit lacking, I had to infer and make guesses.

        Also, 1280×1024 tests? What is this, 1996?

      • EndlessWaves
      • 2 years ago

      Because some of us value size and aren’t bothered about performance, as long as it’s sufficient. This is smaller than some graphics cards.

      It’s like the crossover and GT-line trend in cars. People want the aggressive looks but are quite happy with the off-road ability/sportiness of a normal car.

    • ronch
    • 2 years ago

    When are they gonna kill that stupid skull? It’s ugly. How about a rabbit instead?

      • NTMBK
      • 2 years ago

      But how else would you know that it’s XTREME?!

        • deruberhanyok
        • 2 years ago

        What if they use the Great Beast of Caer Bannog?

          • Mr Bill
          • 2 years ago

          “First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less….”

      • Voldenuit
      • 2 years ago

      [url=https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/destinypedia/images/5/5e/ROI_The_Jade_Rabbit.png/revision/latest?cb=20161009163258<]Bunny heads[/url<] are where it's at.

      • Andrew Lauritzen
      • 2 years ago

      But you can change its colors in the BIOS!!! 😛

      Kidding aside, you can also shut it off in the BIOS.

      • tipoo
      • 2 years ago

      If you turn the lights off you can’t see it at all, 2:20

      [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EavSblb031o[/url<]

    • DancinJack
    • 2 years ago

    I wish AMD would up their game on video decode. It’s really unfortunate that all the video outputs seem to be connected to the Vega GPU rather than having an option so you use some of the nice features of the Intel GPU.

    Maybe Intel will step up their game and make a real GPU one day so they don’t have to rely on AMD or Nvidia for this kind of stuff.

      • Andrew Lauritzen
      • 2 years ago

      It’ll be interesting to see what the laptop OEMs do on this front. One has to assume they will connect the internal display to the iGPU as otherwise battery life would be awful. Would be nice to have some external outputs connected to the dGPU for VR though, particularly on the higher level model… but that creates the awkward situation that you can’t really drag windows doing protected video content (Netflix, etc) between monitors. Probably still the best compromise for laptops, but not entirely ideal.

        • DancinJack
        • 2 years ago

        Yeah, that’s just kind of a mess. I think you are on point with what they might do though. Have to have that lower power consumption, especially on the higher-end model.

          • Andrew Lauritzen
          • 2 years ago

          Yeah insert usual “protected video content is the stupidest stuff that benefits no one and screws up so many things that people don’t even realize it’s ridiculous” rant 😛

        • Mr Bill
        • 2 years ago

        • Mr Bill
        • 2 years ago

        Agreed. Laptop maker could always specify that screen not driven by dGPU if external power not connected.

          • Andrew Lauritzen
          • 2 years ago

          Yeah MUXing is a possibility but normally requires a reboot which is not ideal either. Driving the internal display via the iGPU is only really an issue if you’re trying to do freesync or something here… otherwise it’s probably almost always desirable for a laptop.

            • tay
            • 2 years ago

            There’s no auto-switching like nGreedia has on Windows? Or Apple does for AMD on macOS?

            • Andrew Lauritzen
            • 2 years ago

            I assume there will be on the laptop but I doubt there is on the nuc as all the display outputs are connected to the dgpu.

            • the
            • 2 years ago

            For external displays, Intel has their Thunderbolt 3 controller which takes two DP inputs, simply use one from each GPU. Not sure if that’d invoke a display disconnect/reconnect to switch between them though.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 2 years ago

    These comments about the XboneX are kind of weird. This is absolutely not an HTPC, despite its size. HTPC tasks are best left to cheaper machines, whether console or PC. You’re leaving so much CPU power wasted it’s not even funny, and based on Jeff’s responses in the thread the performance isn’t there for 4K. Less than GTX 1060 6GB? nothankyou.jpg.

    Now if you want something to use as an everyday mid-range gaming PC you can also take to a LAN party, this is your guy. Seems like a small niche, though. I’d rather go gaming notebook for the same money and use the display in the notebook as a secondary display while on the desk. Same price, same upgradeability, less versatility.

      • Mr Bill
      • 2 years ago

      Steam Engine?

      • Andrew Lauritzen
      • 2 years ago

      It’s definitely a niche, but there are actually a few other advantages over a gaming laptop:

      1) It actually has significantly more IO now than a gaming notebook, and not having a (usually mediocre quality) display connected to it is a feature in a lot of use cases 🙂 Not all gaming notebooks these days allow upgrading RAM + (dual) SSDs + wireless as well, so it probably has a minor edge on that.

      2) This time around it’s actually noticeably quieter than any comparable gaming laptops I’ve used. They get *really* hot and *really* loud under load, whereas this thing keeps it to a lower hum pretty well.

      3) Reliability: in my experience these NUCs are just a hell of a lot more reliable in the long term than most gaming laptops. Of course YMMV but anecdotally I got to use a lot of gaming notebooks at work over the past 10 years and a large proportion of them broke or developed issues over time, particularly if they were running under load for any significant portion of time. That’s just the reality of both the form factor and pushing cooling to the limits (see #2). Comparatively I’ve never had a NUC fail and while I’m sure it does happen I routinely ran these things 100% loaded for many hours a day and would have no concern doing that really. Particularly with these KBL-G models, there’s just fewer things that can break than a laptop.

      That said, I do agree with you in general that these aren’t nearly as mass market applicable as gaming laptops (which themselves are already kind of a niche). Just relaying some experiences and anecdotes, take with a grain of salt.

        • Mr Bill
        • 2 years ago

        And with a NUC you get to choose your own screen(s) and peripherals.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 2 years ago

          But that’s the cheap part…which is why a fully-built NUC is $1500 (after 16GB of RAM, 500GB SSD, and Windows purchase)

        • Voldenuit
        • 2 years ago

        A surprising number of gaming laptops actually have 2 NVMe slots, wifi card (which can be user-replaced), and still have space for a 2.5″ platter drive. And many will have one user-accessible RAM slot + 1 soldered on RAM DIMM.

        High refresh and/or VRR screens are also a feature on a lot of newer gaming laptops.

        Factor in my (pre-review) expectations that the Hades Canyon NUC will end up performing somewhere between a 1050Ti and 1060, and I’d much rather have a gaming laptop with a GTX 1060, 1070 or 1080 than the NUC, if I need a portable gaming solution (and I did, recently got an Asus GX501 Zephyrus with a GTX 1080 Max-Q and a 120 Hz IPS G-Sync screen).

          • Andrew Lauritzen
          • 2 years ago

          Interestingly though when you get to that level of gaming laptop the cost argument inverts though… that’s >2x more expensive than the NUC (and much larger) 🙂 Of course it has a faster GPU and a nice-ish screen glued to it, but they are obviously different categories and uses.

          It’s just a different use case really. The NUC is less a “portable gaming system” than a “small but powerful system that can do gaming pretty well” in a lot of was, as I explained in a post further down the comments here.

          I’d actually sooner compare it to a console than a gaming laptop in primary use cases, but of course it can do a much wider variety of things than a console, which is really the appeal for me.

            • Voldenuit
            • 2 years ago

            Fair point, laptops with multi-NVMe drives are expensive, but so are the drives these days.

            But compared to mainstream products, the Hades Canyon NUC is laughably overpriced.

            You can get a whole mainstream gaming laptop with a GTX 1060 for ~$1,000. A dell Inspiron 15 7577 [url=http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/inspiron-15-7000-gaming/spd/inspiron-15-7577-laptop?view=configurations<]can be had for $949[/url<] with a GTX 1060, 8 GB of RAM, and a 256 GB SSD (and you can spec up to NVMe SSDs and additional hard drive storage at reasonable prices). If intel wants to charge me $999 for a barebones with an IGP in it, it better be as freakin' fast as a GTX 1080.

            • Andrew Lauritzen
            • 2 years ago

            But again, you’re missing the entire point of the system: if you don’t care about it being small or are particularly price sensitive, then it simply isn’t for you. 🙂

            I think PCPer worked out the rough premium over a similar desktop at ~30% this time around, which is actually less than in the past (skull canyon, etc).

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        Well, your experience is far and above mine when it comes to gaming laptops. Last one I owned for myself was a Toshiba something-or-other with a GTX 9800M and a Core 2 Quad. My MBP is in a different thermal league with Polaris 21 instead of something comparable to a MaxQ 1060 6GB, but it’s very quiet. So I’ll take your experience as fact for most folks.

        It’s the pricing where I’m going to take issue, and it’s not really Intel’s fault. The pieces you’re taking away from a notebook are the cheapest parts – the display might add $25 to the bill of goods? Even a 1080p IPS display. You can buy those as replacements for $50 or less shipped to your door. The keyboard is almost a throwaway part. Same for most trackpads. It’s the RAM, the storage, the CPU/GPU, and the R&D that goes into designing a tiny logic boards. You don’t save ANY of that going with a NUC.

          • Andrew Lauritzen
          • 2 years ago

          Honestly I don’t see this sort of thing ever trying to compete on price with mainstream products. The reality is the primary competition would be consoles, and there’s no winning that price war of course due to secondary revenue streams. Even competing with mainstream laptops is probably a bad idea because the margins are already pretty thin there too. And I doubt these products will ever have similar economies of scale to laptops so they are always going to have a larger portion of fixed costs included there too.

          There’s of course nothing stopping someone else from taking the chip and building their own NUC-like thing for cheaper, but if past has shown that generally only happens with very low end chips (often atoms…), or conversely in similarly premium products (Zotac). I’d love to see more “competition” in this category but honestly I’m happy we have this thing at all 🙂

      • FlamingSpaceJunk
      • 2 years ago

      Every so often I think, “A MBP or a Dell Precision laptop minus the screen and keyboard would be a great desktop.”

      And here it is. 🙂

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        My MBP is a very fine desktop with a built-in secondary display. But I get what you’re saying, I just don’t think it’ll be economical.

        MOST of the expense is in the design of the compact logic board, not the display and keyboard. Maybe a bit in the trackpad if it’s one of the glass Apple ones with force-touch.

          • Andrew Lauritzen
          • 2 years ago

          Displays on Macbook Pros aren’t necessarily that cheap, but I agree with the sentiment 🙂

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 years ago

            Yeah, those wider-gamut displays probably cost more than the typical replacement price of $60 for [url=https://www.laptopscreen.com/English/model/Dell/INSPIRON~I7558-2510BLK/<]run-of-the-mill 1080p IPS panels[/url<]. Maybe twice as much, maybe a little more.

      • NTMBK
      • 2 years ago

      A shoebox mini-ITX case is portable enough to take to a LAN party, has an upgradeable GPU to prolong the life of the system, and has far more performance potential. This thing is a solution looking for a problem.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        Well, I was trying. 😆

        • Andrew Lauritzen
        • 2 years ago

        Again, it all depends what someone is looking for. As people have pointed out frequently, even the smallest of systems with discrete GPUs are many times bigger than this. Sure you can bring larger stuff to a LAN – hell we all frequently bring towers to LAN’s. But this can fit in a coat pocket (I used to bring my skull canyon on business trips like that)… it’s not really comparable 🙂

        It’s certainly not for everyone, but it’s great that it exists for those of us who want maximum performance (and IO!) out of something that size.

        • Redocbew
        • 2 years ago

        Building a super tiny ITX system with a high end GPU isn’t as cheap, quick or simple as many people are lead to believe. Outside of fully custom scratch builds there’s still only a few cases which fit the “shoebox” theme. The rest don’t really fall into the small form factor category at all.

    • NTMBK
    • 2 years ago

    That price just isn’t good enough. Compare it to something like the Xbox One X, and it’s a total ripoff.

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      Well my Linux desktop will run infinitely faster on this thing that on the XboneX, so I don’t think a price-performance ratio of infinity is a bad deal.

      That’s not even taking into account the CPU power of this thing compared to the bone even if you assume that the Bone has roughly equivalent GPU power (I’d still want this GPU though).

        • NTMBK
        • 2 years ago

        Buying this thing for gaming power and then putting Linux on it is just hilarious.

          • chuckula
          • 2 years ago

          Who said I would buy one for gaming power?
          There’s more than one use for a GPU, and no, I don’t mean mining either.

        • DrCR
        • 2 years ago

        In the Linux realm, how’s the AMD GPU driver front these days?

          • chuckula
          • 2 years ago

          Not perfect but substantially better than it used to be.

    • Mr Bill
    • 2 years ago

    $999… Xbox breaths a sigh of relief?

      • tipoo
      • 2 years ago

      No one expected it to be console cheap I don’t think, Core + Radeon + HBM2 + EMIB are an expensive package.

        • Shobai
        • 2 years ago

        Yep. What sort of loon expected that? The consoles have an ongoing revenue stream available to them that these will never have, so the whole cost needs to be dealt with upfront.

          • tipoo
          • 2 years ago

          Yeah that’s the other thing hardware cost aside, consoles are often near at-cost and sometimes even loss leaders, they make money on services and software licences.

            • Andrew Lauritzen
            • 2 years ago

            Especially now that you practically are required to pay the $50/year toll to both manufacturers… :S But I’m not bitter at how the market that claims to be price sensitive just accepted that, as usual (see mobile phones and other hidden financing)… 😛

            • tipoo
            • 2 years ago

            Too true, over a 7 year life that would close to bridge the gap with a budget console-class gaming PC built at the same time, and PC titles tend to go cheaper faster.

            Phones are a perfect analogy, the most price sensitive people fall into the trap of “free with contract” a lot…Yeah, you’re not getting a 1000 dollar phone for free, you’re just paying for it more slowly!

    • Kretschmer
    • 2 years ago

    Can you give us a hint where it slots relative to the mobile GTX 1060, 1050Ti, and 1050?

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 2 years ago

      It doesn’t beat a mobile GTX 1060 6 GB (non-Max-Q) but probably outperforms a desktop GTX 1050 Ti by a decent margin in most things. I’m testing a desktop 1050 Ti and mobile GTX 1060 6 GB (non-Max-Q) so you’ll be able to see for sure soon, I hope.

        • Kretschmer
        • 2 years ago

        As the recent buyer of a 1050Ti MaxQ laptop, I’m very interested to see how KL-G performs in the laptop form factor (and how pricey it will be).

        • tay
        • 2 years ago

        Being so used to intel eXtreme!!! graphics performance those results sound absolutely amazing.

    • Andrew Lauritzen
    • 2 years ago

    It’s a pretty neat system, both for the performance, size and also pretty awesome IO included on it. Been having lots of fun playing with it and intend to do more in the future!

    Regarding price, you always pay a premium for these things of course. That said, with current GPU prices it’s actually less of a delta than it was for Skull Canyon. I believe PCPer concluded that it’s about a 30% premium over a similarly performing desktop at the moment (and presumably less compared to laptops), which is certainly not bad considering how much smaller it is! It’s definitely awesome to be able to put it in my Oculus box and bring an entire compact VR setup to someone else’s place easily.

    The biggest bummer is actually how big the power brick is… will have to investigate if there are more compact options for that.

    Of course usual caveats apply: if you’re not the sort of person who cares primarily about the size of your system and instead cares the most about the cost or some other factor, it isn’t for you in the first place 🙂

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 2 years ago

      It’s quite a nifty PC. I agree that the range of I/O is unparalleled in the SFF space and I’m super impressed that the system is as quiet as it is under load.

      My one beef with this system (as you note) is that the power brick is nearly as large as the rest of the PC. It can go on the floor or on the underside of a desk, but it’s got to go somewhere (especially if/when you pack up and go).

      I also think that if one cares about mobility, one would be better served for the money by a gaming notebook with a GTX 1060 6 GB in it, since such a system already includes a keyboard and screen and it’s ultimately less to carry if you can just toss a gaming mouse in the bag with it.

      As you note, if you need the size to be just so it’s a very cool little box. But any loosening of dimensional requirements (even to Ncase M1-type cases) lets you put a more powerful and potentially cheaper system inside now that midrange graphics card prices are returning to Earth. Still, it’s a remarkable achievement in packaging and integration and I’m looking forward to publishing full impressions.

        • Andrew Lauritzen
        • 2 years ago

        If your goal is to use it like a laptop (carry an entire system with you and use it while on the road), then a laptop is definitely a better fit 🙂 Indeed I believe KBL-G will be in a several laptops if it isn’t already and that will be interesting to see what it can do in that form factor.

        And as I noted, if your goal is cost over size, it’s not the right solution either, although this time around the premium over comparable performance competitors (even desktop towers) is actually smaller than with Skull Canyon.

        For me these NUCs still make sense in a variety of situations:

        1) “Attached to TV” machines. This is still where I use mine the most – media and gaming on my TV without taking up tons of space and high idle power, while having all the connectivity you need (wireless, bluetooth, card reader, IR, even an array microphone on this one!) built-in. This model expands the amount of games I can happily play locally vs. skull canyon. While Steam streaming is a great option to have, local is still better.

        2) “Bring to friend’s house” machines. In particular this one being able to drive VR is great as I noted and means I can bring VR to show people a lot more easily! Can in theory be done with a laptop as well, but not a frequent enough use case for me to own a gaming laptop for entirely, and a gaming laptop doesn’t fit some of the other roles as well.

        3) LAN machine. Increasingly this thing is getting into the performance level where I’d happily bring it to a LAN. Laptops are not very comfortable for extended LAN gaming IMO compared to a dedicated KB+mouse+monitor, and if I’m bringing or borrowing those things the NUC is actually much smaller to bring than a laptop. Now I still love high refresh rates enough that it’s not a complete shoe-in, but conversely a lot of the games people play at LANs these days run perfectly fine on this thing.

        4) Professional use: packing a lot of IO/compute power in a small area. Setups that need to drive many inputs (ex. USB/thunderbolt cameras) or displays are a great fit, particularly with the very fast storage options as well.

        Ultimately for me gaming laptops are still the piece that doesn’t make as much sense, although I agree they are perfect for a lot of folks uses. For me I’m always going to have something Surface Pro or smaller for actual travel/work because carrying around huge laptops is obnoxious and unnecessary for anything other than gaming. I’m always going to have a full tower desktop with a many-core CPU and multiple GPUs for work and primary gaming at home. For “TV-connected-machine” a NUC makes great sense and thus upgrading that piece to a higher performance level better fits my needs for the remaining circumstances vs. having to *additionally* have a gaming laptop just for those few cases where I actually want to do heavy gaming while traveling.

        But yes, the power brick being so large is certainly a bummer. Gaming laptops are not really much better but I imagine this one could be improved upon for a bit more money. It’s definitely more than 2x the volume compared to the 100W surface book adapter, so I feel like improvements could definitely be made while still keeping the 200W headroom for overclocking or whatever.

        Anyways sorry for the long post, just I like these sorts of little boxes a lot 🙂

          • Jeff Kampman
          • 2 years ago

          I really do appreciate hearing from people who “get” these systems as I admittedly do not so much. Thanks for the perspective.

            • Andrew Lauritzen
            • 2 years ago

            No worries, to each his own 🙂 As I’ve mentioned in the past I still completely do not “get” any point in external GPU/enclosures and generally have little interest in gaming laptops, so always good to hear different situations.

            • BurntMyBacon
            • 2 years ago

            External GPU/enclosure support is not ubiquitous enough to really make sense yet, but I believe many that like the idea have a different idea of how to meet their requirements. Where you (like me) use a desktop for your primary workhorse and gaming system, some people prefer to have a bit more mobility from their primary system. People who don’t like the hassle of syncing data between devices often fall into this category. I’ve seen some workflows where a laptop is used for work, data is backed up on a NAS, and gaming takes place on a console. I think many people find the external GPU appealing because it can ideally fill in the PC gaming gap that is missing without requiring a full separate system.

            Imagine a Surface Pro with enough battery life to take on the go that can be docked to a keyboard, mouse, and monitors. Now imagine it can ramp up the CPU horsepower while running off the mains instead of the battery. Sounds pretty familiar to anyone who owns a Surface Pro today. Now imagine you can buy an external GPU to add to the workspace and the setup is suddenly capable of some pretty decent gaming. It wouldn’t be very appealing for gaming on the go, but if you are only looking to do gaming at home where your gaming oriented equipment is anyways, then such a Surface Pro could be used for both a mobile and desktop system.

            Thermal constraints will prevent such a setup from replacing a truly powerful desktop gaming system, but there are many who game on an APU or low to mid range graphics that even existing Surface Pro should be able to keep up with reasonably well if only it were paired with a decent graphics card. A new Surface Pro with a four core CPU in the same thermal envelope as the current two core model (as looks likely for the next version), could go even farther.

            An alternate use for external graphics is a gaming laptop that is capable of reasonably high end gaming on the go, but when the internal graphics is shut off and replaced with a more powerful external card, the processor can stretch its legs more within the available thermal envelope of the chassis. This would allow you to move from reasonably high end gaming to solidly high end gaming levels.

            Again, a truly powerful desktop gaming system will be better, but less because of thermal constraints and more because current external graphics implementations are not quite up to supporting the highest end graphics cards without bottlenecks in the communications path.

            In short, while external graphics in their current form don’t make as much sense, if a standardized unbottlenecked implementation were to receive relatively ubiquitous support, then they could make a lot more sense for some people. Unfortunately, I don’t see ubiquitous support materializing given the level of fragmentation in an already niche market.

            • Andrew Lauritzen
            • 2 years ago

            I’ve heard all the arguments before, but to me it comes down to a simple fact: almost all of the size, cost and power of a modern gaming system is in the GPU and power supply already. If you make a box with those components in it you might as well just put a CPU in there as well and then you have two useful systems, way fewer cables and higher performance in both cases. And in most cases it actually ends up cheaper as well.

            So the only argument I can even really understand is the data movement one… but in this day and age it’s so easy to sync things to wherever you need them (and usually you don’t need a ton of syncing between work and home stuff anyways) that I feel that is increasingly niche as well.

            I really do believe that a lot of the thinking about external GPUs stems from the psychological fact that people feel “if I spent $1500 on this Surface Pro, it must have a lot of intrinsic value in it – thus if I could just add a component that it’s missing for gaming, it’ll be great!”. The reality is that your Surface Pro is expensive because it’s small and low power, neither of which are good constraints to optimize around for gaming.

            So ultimately even in the case where all the technology worked perfectly, as long as GPUs are the dominant size and power users in a gaming PC (i.e. for the foreseeable future) it doesn’t make sense to put them in a box that needlessly omits a CPU.

          • Mr Bill
          • 2 years ago

          Reminds me of a brick like 386 computer that a friend used to bring home from work circa 1986-ish. It was a switch programmer and it was just the smallest PC I had ever seen, literally like a brick. I like the whole idea of it also.

      • FlamingSpaceJunk
      • 2 years ago

      Yeah, the power brick is the biggest bummer. This isn’t as ridiculous as the dual brick powered Zotac stuff, but an internal PSU would be nice at this power level.

    • euricog
    • 2 years ago

    Funny, I would swear that you wrote that this [u<]barebones system[/u<] costs $1,000...

    • Neutronbeam
    • 2 years ago

    We’re all saying hello to your leetle friend!

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      Beat you to it!

        • Neutronbeam
        • 2 years ago

        Check the timestamps…I’d say we’re even!

      • Anovoca
      • 2 years ago

      Quick!!! Say Jinx so he has to stop posting!!!!

        • Neutronbeam
        • 2 years ago

        Jinx! Wait…oops, now I have to stop pos

        • drfish
        • 2 years ago

        You know I’m a fan chuck, but I had to up-vote this.

          • chuckula
          • 2 years ago

          ME THREE!

          • Neutronbeam
          • 2 years ago

          Of course you did…his posts get a lot of upchucks.

    • chuckula
    • 2 years ago

    [quote<]. Say hello to Intel's highest-performance Hades Canyon system, also known as the NUC8i7HVK.[/quote<] Say hello to our little friend! -- Intel/AMD

      • Srsly_Bro
      • 2 years ago

      Intel shill! You didn’t say AMD first! How much did you get paid?

        • chuckula
        • 2 years ago

        Nowhere near enough man. Nowhere near enough.

        Seriously, if AMD ponies up enough for beer I’m happy to switch them around.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This