[CALUG] new laptop and desktop

Fri Jun 28 01:22:32 EDT 2019

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:45 PM Ingrid Seabranch Hastings <jah1066 at aol.com>
wrote:

> I will leave the laptop discussion to others,

On the notebook end, I posted back in Feb in the previous thread "Looking
for advice". [1] [2]

Also notebook-related, some of it went AMD-centric at one point, which is
relevant because as of July, AMD Zen2 (3rd Gen Ryzen/Ripper) is now ahead
of Intel on feature sizes for the first time in 25 years. [3] [4] [5] (and
there were more after that, but less relevant).

but as to the desktop, I have had very good results with the Intel NUC
> family.

(NUC stands for Next Unit of Computing.) These are nice little boxes (2x4x4
> inches)

First off, which Intel NUC model?  There's more than one.  They are not all
the same either.
And how does it stack up against the countless, other Nano-ITX and Pico-ITX
options that are cheaper and/or more powerful?
Or have you only heard of Intel NUC?  (if you say you've only heard of NUC,
you're not alone -- marketing does wonders)

> with quite low power consumption.  You buy the NUC and install whatever RAM
> and hard disc (or SSD) you want.  It has room for two sticks of RAM.
> Basically it is a very small desktop with video, USB and audio.

Secondly ... you hear Intel NUC from 9 out of 10 people because -- as I
hinted -- marketing.

So, stepping back ...

Once upon a time there were a lot of embedded x86 (and even x86-64) vendors
that sold system-on-a-chip (SoC) designs.  They were typically a full
generation behind.  Embedded 486 when Pentium was around.  Embedded i686
when x86-64 was around.  IDT/Centuar, SGS-Thompson (now STMicro), etc...
ViA was a big one, and one of the first creators of various "semi-ATX
compatible" boards, moving away from ye-olde SBC (single board computer)
designs that were 3.5" (4x6") or 5.25" (6x8") 'drive size' computers which
we know today as Mini-ITX, Nano-ITX, Pico-ITX and similar.

E.g., I used to deal with OEMs direct from Taiwan in the early to mid '00s,
largely because I could get them to under-clock Mini-ITX and Nano-ITX,
especially ones with CardBus slots so I could put wireless and satellite
cards into them, for field mesh access and station points -- like the ones
I designed that were in the field in Louisana providing the only
communications for awhile in 2005, including our 407 area code (Orlando)
numbers from a VoIP partner people could call to find out about their loved
ones post-Katrina.  I.e., it wasn't AOL, it was us, small, Orlando-based
company that provided the on-site network.

So ... after that, and a lot of other things going on during the era,
especially since embedded x86 was offering lower power (not as good as ARM,
but still), it got really popular again.

Intel eventually joined the fray in the late '00s with it's (at the time)
'07+, in-line Atom, before Atom was a SoC, so they also required a
"Southbridge" (now ICH) which not only increased board cost, but used
older, larger feature sized chips that sucked up more power.  Even AMD had
its Geode line that competed in this area too.

The common realities of all these x86 solutions was that they were 3-5
years behind in design, fabricated at higher features sizes, so far lower
performing, not really good on the power-performance curve, but cheaper
(other than Intel pre-SoC Atom designs, which were not), because they were
board + BGA (ball grid array) soldiered on-board.  In volume, prices came
down very well, ideal if you needed x86 compatibility (like a lot of 3rd
party drivers/software did -- even on GNU/Linux).

Then one day in the late '00s, AMD released a leading-edge, out-of-order,
superscalar, register renaming, full-up "Hammer" architecture that was
specifically for BGA, and completely SoC -- everything in the single
echip.  And it was dirt freak'n cheap, like $5-25, not just in the CPU
(w/integrated GPU), but the entire board cost and -- better yet -- they
were putting DisplayPort, GbE, even the latest XHCI (USB 3.0) in the chip.
So how did AMD do it?  It killed one DDR channel and nix'd the
HyperTransport, so it was only 423 traces, Socket FT1 (BGA-423).  Although
AMD later re-added a limited HyperTransport plus added more PCIe channels
in Socket FT3 (BGA-769), it still remained extremely cheap, and that's why
both Microsoft and Sony picked it for the Xbox One and PS4, respectively.

Beyond quickly becoming massively popular in embedded, with a few Taiwanese
vendors like Zotac and its ZBox line (which is extensive [6] [7]), the AMD
products sold like hotcakes and, better yet, it trashed Intel's non-SoC
Atom, let alone when the GPU was utilized.  Plus one got all of the latest
ports and technologies.  Intel integrators were using 5 years behind with
their SouthBridge/ICH choices, so you got USB 2.0 and HDMI or even only
DVI/VGA, and you were gonna like it.

Intel then realized by only selling in-line Atom at one end (largely the
"netbook" market with 1/5th price 'hardware limited' Windows), and i-Core
at the other (even if 'crippled' Celeron/Pentium-G existed), they were
leaving out a massive market -- especially SoC.  Although Intel quickly
refocused on getting a true Atom SoC out, in a higher performing variety
(and even out-of-order/supercalar, once ARMv7 'went there' and started
really trashing Atom), it was really in a bad position.

So, overnight in 2010, Intel took a 2nd gen i-Core (SandyBridge) and
released a sub-spec (crippled) Celeron 847 with a massive pin count
(BGA-1023), which still had to use external logic, etc... just to 'offer
something.'  That was the first gen NUC, and it was massively overpriced.
But marketing -- again  -- does wonders.

The funny thing is ... something else also happened.

All those OEMs out there?  They didn't have to use Intel.  A few of them
even had these little 'tiny tower' box designs already, both AMD and
Intel.  And between the Zotac ZBox line and Intel NUC ... it didn't matter
if it was AMD or Intel, whether it was low power or even a full i5, they
could sell rectangular boxes, even ones that 100x100mm VESA Mount.  So once
the Intel NUC hit, everyone did it, and often better and cheaper too.

One of the best, that literally blew away Intel's own NUCs -- even 2nd gens
and later -- at a _cheaper_ price point, was the Gigabyte BRIX line [8], as
they offered some powerful i5 quad-cores in the early '10s.  I recommended
them over Intel's over-priced, over-marketed NUCs at the high-end, because
for a $500 Intel NUC, you could get a $500 Gigabyte BRIX with almost twice
the performance.  That may no longer be the case, but it was really
pathetic to see the massive markup Intel had early on ... because, again,
marketing.

Although even today, when it comes to a crapload of options, Zotac ZBox was
one of the first, and Zotac is king.  They even have a portable backpack
for non-tethered VR gaming.  But they also have things that fit in your
pocket too.  I usually bought their AMD BGA-769

But there are many others.  As always, ignore marketing, hit reviews, and
find what you want.  9 out of 10 people recommend Intel NUC, because that's
all they've ever heard of.  Again, marketing does wonders, especially when
you're blindsided, just like Microsoft was often too.  ;)

- bjs

REFERENCES:

Notebook Discussion (2019-Feb):
[1] https://lists.unknownlamer.org/pipermail/calug/2019-February/002304.html
[2] https://lists.unknownlamer.org/pipermail/calug/2019-February/002305.html

AMD Discussion (2019-Feb ... more, including through March).
[3] https://lists.unknownlamer.org/pipermail/calug/2019-February/002308.html
[4] https://lists.unknownlamer.org/pipermail/calug/2019-February/002309.html
[5] https://lists.unknownlamer.org/pipermail/calug/2019-February/002314.html

Zotac ZBox
[6] https://www.zotac.com/sk/product/mini_pcs/overview
[7] https://www.zotac.com/sk/product/mini_pcs/whyzbox

Gigabyte BRIX:
[8] https://www.gigabyte.com/us/Mini-PcBarebone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.unknownlamer.org/pipermail/calug/attachments/20190628/49c8ac5b/attachment.html>