08 Nov
Blog

Intel Core i9-12900K Review: Let’s Call It a Comeback

Intel Core i9-12900K in one motherboard.

Intel Core i9-12900K

RRP $ 619.00

"The Intel Core i9-12900K undercuts the competition in terms of price and delivers too high a performance."

advantages

  • Outperforms the Ryzen 9 5950X on most workloads

  • Significantly cheaper than the Ryzen 9 5950X

  • DDR5 support

  • Solid overclocking headroom

  • PCIe 5.0 on supported motherboards

disadvantage

  • High power requirement

  • Runs a little hot

"Intel is back." It's a phrase you've mumbled ad nauseam if you've been paying attention to CPUs in the past few years, even before Intel fell behind AMD. It wasn't until AMD started to hit the desktop market with the introduction of Ryzen 5000 that Intel started putting those words into action – and the result is Alder Lake.

The Core i9-12900K is Intel's flagship Alder Lake chip and, after thorough testing, has earned a spot on our list of the best processors you can buy. Not only does it represent a new generation of processors, it's also the first release under a new CEO, the first time Intel has used its 10nm manufacturing process on the desktop, and the first time we have a hybrid CPU architecture in a slot-in processor.

It also represents a company that has rested on its laurels long enough to lose the thunder. AMD has overtaken Intel in the desktop and server market, and Apple has abandoned its longstanding partnership with Intel to develop its own chips that are faster and more efficient. However, Alder Lake shows that Intel is indeed back.

Specs: What is the difference between Alder Lake?

Intel Core i9-12900K box.

The Core i9-12900K is Alder Lake's flagship chip that sits above the Core i5 and Core i7 models. There are two variants available, both of which are enabled for overclocking.

The KF series chip lacks integrated graphics, but is also a little cheaper. In terms of performance, the two chips are identical.

Cores Base frequency Max. Boost frequency Intel Smart Cache (L3) Integrated graphics Basic service Maximum turbo performance Suggested price
Core i9-12900K 16 (8P + 8E) 3.2 GHz (P core), 2.4 GHz (E core) Up to 5.2 GHz 30 MB Intel UHD 770 125W 241W $ 589
Core i9-12900KF 16 (8P + 8E) 3.2 GHz (P core), 2.4 GHz (E core) Up to 5.2 GHz 30 MB N / A 125W 241W $ 564
Core i7-12700K 12 (8P + 4E) 3.6 GHz (P core), 2.7 GHz (E core Up to 5.0 GHz 25 MB Intel UHD 770 125W 190W $ 409
Core i7-12700KF 12 (8P + 4E) 3.6 GHz (P core), 2.7 GHz (E core) Up to 5.0 GHz 25 MB N / A 125W 190W $ 384
Core i5-12600K 10 (6P + 4E) 3.7 GHz (P core), 2.8 GHz (E core) Up to 4.9 GHz 20 MB Intel UHD 770 125W 150W $ 289
Core i5-12600KF 10 (6P + 4E) 3.7 GHz (P core), 2.8 GHz (E core) Up to 4.9 GHz 20 MB N / A 125W 150W $ 264

A comparison of the specifications with AMD brings practically nothing. Not only do AMD and Intel use different architectures, the latest AMD chips don't use a hybrid architecture like Intel's. Both the Core i9-12900K and AMD's Ryzen 9 5950X are 16-core processors, but these cores couldn't be more different.

That's because the Core i9-12900K uses two types of cores. Instead of 16 large cores, it uses eight high-performance (P) cores and eight efficient (E) cores. The P-cores do the big, important tasks, while the E-cores clean everything up in the background. The Core i9-12900K is technically a 16-core processor, but only eight of these cores are comparable to AMD.

The two specs I can compare are price and performance. The Intel chip draws a lot more for performance – up to 241 watts at maximum turbo. The 5950X is only rated at 105W, although it can get closer to 200W when overclocked. However, this is well below the Core i9-12900K. The 5950X only requires a single 8-pin CPU connector while the Core i9-12900K requires two.

The power consumption is higher on the Core i9-12900K, but the price is lower. At recommended price, the Core i9-12900K is $ 210 cheaper than the 5950X, although prices are closer to most retailers. The Core i9-12900K retails for around $ 650 while the Ryzen 9 5950X costs around $ 750. However, a $ 100 price difference is a significant loophole.

Test configurations

Intel Core i9-12900K in one motherboard.

Before I get into the results, here are the four rigs I used for testing:

Erlensee DDR5 Erlensee DDR4 AMD Zen 3 10th generation Intel
Central processor Intel Core i9-12900K Intel Core i9-12900K AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Intel Core i9-10900K
GPU Nvidia RTX 3090 Founders Edition Nvidia RTX 3090 Founders Edition Nvidia RTX 3090 Founders Edition Nvidia RTX 3090 Founders Edition
R.A.M. 32GB SK Hynix DDR5-4800 32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3200 32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3200 32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3200
Motherboard MSI Z690 Carbon WLAN MSI Pro Z690-A DDR4 Gigabyte Aorus B550 Elite Asus Tuf Gaming Z490-Plus
CPU cooler Corsair H115i Elite Capellix Corsair H115i Elite Capellix Corsair H115i Elite Capellix Corsair H115i Elite Capellix
power supply Be calm! 850W 80 Plus platinum Be calm! 850W 80 Plus platinum Be calm! 850W 80 Plus platinum EVGA G6 1000W 80 Plus Gold
storage Corsair MP400 1TB SSD Corsair MP400 1TB SSD Corsair MP400 1TB SSD Crucial MX500 2TB SSD

For my most important CPU and gaming tests, I ran the Alder Lake bank with DDR5. DDR5 is a platform perk, after all, so it should sit next to the processor to show what the Alder Lake and Z690 are capable of. Similarly, I ran my tests on the latest build of Windows 11 to make sure it was downloading the patches for the recent bugs caused by AMD chips.

Of course, DDR5 and Windows 11 Alder Lake appear in the most positive light. Even so, I retested DDR4 and Windows 10 to see the differences, and while there are some clear differences, they don't apply to all workloads.

power

Intel has promised a huge leap forward with Alder Lake, and based on my results, the Core i9-12900K delivers. In my testing, one thing became clear: Intel is capable of delivering the same 16-core performance as the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, and not only at a lower price, but with half of its cores at full power.

Intel Core i9-12900K AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Intel Core i9-10900K
Cinebench R23 single core 1,989 1,531 1,291
Cinebench R23 multicore 27,344 27,328 13,614
Geekbench 5 single core 2,036 1,726 1,362
Geekbench 5 multicore 18,259 14,239 10,715
PC Mark 10 9.092 8,254 7,593
Handbrake (seconds, lower is better) 47 58 72
Pugetbench for Premiere Pro 1,066 992 855
Pugetbench for Photoshop 1,315 1.009 1,023
7-zip 126.215 139,074 86,172

Cinebench R23 illustrates this perfectly. This demanding benchmark tasked the CPU with rendering an image, so it's a great way to isolate the processor from other components. If all cores are working, the Core i9-12900K and Ryzen 9 5950X deliver almost identical results.

That doesn't look good, but it's important to keep an eye on Alder Lake's hybrid architecture – and the fact that it's $ 200 less than the Ryzen 9 5950X. The single-core score highlights the discrepancy where the Core i9-12900K is almost 30% faster. Compared to the Core i9-10900K, the new chip is almost 62% faster in the single-core Cinebench R23 test.

The Core i9-12900K competes with the Ryzen 9 5900X in terms of price and the 5950X in terms of performance.

Geekbench 5 is a bit tighter, whereby the Core i9-12900K leaves the AMD chip behind by around 28% in the multi-core test. That's a massive improvement, but almost entirely on the back of DDR5. With DDR4, the Core i9-12900K is actually slower in the multi-core test than the Ryzen 9 5950X, but it retains the lead in the single-core test.

However, PC Mark 10 provides a good look at how these chips stack up overall. There the Core i9-12900K is around 10% faster than the Ryzen 9 5950X and around 20% faster than the 10th generation chip.

Both Intel chips have the edge when it comes to creative apps. Although the Core i9-10900K scores below the Ryzen 9 5950X in the Premiere Pro benchmark, it shouldn't be anywhere near as close as it is. The biggest difference comes from Photoshop, where the Core i9-12900K has a 30% lead over the Ryzen 9 5950X – likely on the back of DDR5.

Pins on Intel Core i9-12900K.

Of the seven benchmarks I ran, the Ryzen 9 5950X only took first place in one: 7-Zip. In this test, the Ryzen 9 5950X is about 10% faster than the Core i9-12900K. This result explains the narrower Geekbench results because Geekbench takes into account file compression and decompression.

Intel supplied. The Core i9-12900K competes with the Ryzen 9 5900X in terms of price, but competes with the Ryzen 9 5950X in terms of performance – and comes out with a clear lead.

Games

Intel has touted the Core i9-12900K as the best gaming CPU out there, and my results confirm it. It shows some clear advantages over the Core i9-10900K, but largely corresponds to the Ryzen 9 5950X. Still, there are a few issues with Alder Lake and certain games.

All of the tests listed below were run at 1080p with the graphics presets High to Ultra. I also ran tests at 1440p and 4K, although there isn't much to report. The differences are consistent at all resolutions, and at 4K, where games are tied to the GPU, the three chips show no difference in performance.

Intel Core i9-12900K AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Intel Core i9-10900K
3D Mark Time Spy 19396 17922 18341
Red Dead Redemption 2 137 fps 135 fps 129 fps
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 118 fps 121 fps 122 fps
Forza Horizon 4 234 fps 201 fps 200 fps
Civilization VI (shooting time, lower is better) 7.3 seconds 7.5 seconds 6.5 seconds

Assassin's Creed Valhalla is the best place to start as it is an example of a game that struggles with Alder Lake. It lags behind both the Ryzen 9 5950X and the Core i9-10900K. Worse, I couldn't get the benchmark to work consistently. The game crashed instantly, causing a headache for hours when I fixed an issue with no clear answer.

Ubisoft and Intel confirmed that Valhalla has an issue with the Core i9-12900K, but did not want to provide any further details. Regardless, if the game worked, it performed slightly below the Ryzen 9 5950X and Core i9-10900K. I haven't encountered any issues with other games, which suggests that this issue is on Ubisoft's side.

3D Mark shows a clearer scaling between the three chips, with the Ryzen 9 5950X and the Core i9-10900K in a close grouping, while the Core i9-12900K shoots forward. The end result is about 8% faster than the Ryzen 9 5950X, likely aided by DDR5's improved bandwidth. As I'll go into in the next section, DDR5 showed a clear advantage in this benchmark.

For the first time in a while, Intel is showing a clear lead in gaming.

My Ryzen 5950X result was almost identical to the one I got with the same chip in the Origin Neuron. However, the average score of the 3DMark leaderboards is slightly higher. This is likely a memory problem; Even with XMP enabled, the Ryzen 9 5950X delivered below-average results. You'd have to tighten the timings to get a higher score, an issue the Core i9-12900K doesn't have.

Forza Horizon 4 produced the largest difference in raw frame rate, with the Core i9-12900K having a 16% advantage over the other two chips. Forza also delivers frame rates specifically from the CPU, and the Core i9-12900K has some great advantages. At 1080p, it outperformed the Ryzen 9 5950X by 21% in CPU render frame rate and 10% in CPU simulation.

That game also showed a difference at 1440p, with the Core i9-12900K maintaining a solid 22 fps lead over the other two chips. While some games don't benefit much from Alder Lake – take my Red Dead Redemption 2 results as an example – others will do so for big wins.

For the first time in a while, Intel is showing a clear lead in gaming. The Core i9-12900K may be over the top for most games – after all, it's still tied to the GPU at 4K – but it still seems to go beyond last-gen parts and the competition.

DDR4 vs. DDR5

Intel Alder Lake box with DDR5 memory.

I did my main tests with DDR5. There is no getting around it: DDR5 offers advantages over DDR4. There's no world in which I could compare the Core i9-12900K to the Ryzen 9 5950X without sacrificing Intel's newer version.

DDR5 is an Alder Lake perk, so it's as relevant to performance as the processor itself. Even so, I retested a limited set of benchmarks with DDR4 to gauge how much difference you can expect with the new memory standard.

DDR4 DDR5
PC Mark 10 8794 9092
3D Mark Time Spy (total) 18175 19396
Red Dead Redemption 2 (1080p Ultra) 114 fps 115 fps
Geekbench 5 single core 1902 2036
Geekbench 5 multicore 12969 18259
Pugetbench for Premiere Pro 1019 1066

Overall, the differences are small – apart from an oddly large gap in my multi-core Geekbench 5 results. In games, DDR5 made no difference in Red Dead Redemption 2, and in 3D Mark Time Spy it meant a nearly 7% increase. That's not to be sniffed at, but consider the differences between the runs and the difference doesn't look that big.

Likewise, PCMark 10 with DDR5 only showed a 3% increase, and PugetBench for Premiere Pro showed virtually no difference. The eccentric is Geekbench's multi-core test, which showed an increase of almost 41% with DDR5. This illustrates the main performance point of DDR5: it really depends on the application.

DDR5 has a lot more bandwidth, but that comes at the expense of latency. Obviously, modern applications prefer bandwidth more, but some do so much more than others. Overall, you can see a slight upturn in DDR5, with some applications taking up the new memory standard particularly well.

However, I want to use this section to clear up some confusion. Although Alder Lake supports DDR4 and DDR5, they are not interchangeable. You cannot insert a DDR4 stick into a DDR5 motherboard or vice versa. Before you pick it up, make sure you know what type of memory your Z690 motherboard supports.

Windows 11 vs. Windows 10

Windows 11 start deck.

Alder Lake not only represents the introduction of DDR5, but also the introduction of Windows 11. AMD chips have some issues with the new operating system, so I have the same limited set of tests on the Core i9-12900K and Ryzen 9 5950X on Windows performed 11 and Windows 10 to see the differences. There is not much to report.

Intel Core i9-12900K Windows 11 Intel Core i9-12900K Windows 10
PC Mark 10 9092 7919
3D Mark Time Spy 19396 19511
Red Dead Redemption 2 115 fps 112 fps
Geekbench 5 single core 2036 1962
Geekbench 5 multicore 18259 18282
Pugetbench for Premiere Pro 1066 1283

With the Core i9-12900K, the differences are largely negligible. The most noticeable increase came from PC Mark 10, where my Windows 11 rig was almost 15% faster. This is due to a high Creation Score in PC Mark 10, for which Alder Lake seems to be particularly well suited.

Premiere Pro also showed a big difference: about 20% more in favor of Windows 10. However, I used an older version of Premiere for my testing – v15.4, in case you're wondering – which may not have the same optimizations for Windows 11.

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Windows 11 AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Windows 10
PC Mark 10 8254 8041
3D Mark Time Spy 17922 17572
Red Dead Redemption 2 135 fps 133 fps
Geekbench 5 single core 1726 1710
Geekbench 5 multicore 14239 14084
Pugetbench for Premiere Pro 992 994

There was no difference with the Ryzen 9 5950X either. While 3D Mark Time Spy and Red Dead Redemption 2 had some minor changes, none of them have any consequences. It's true that AMD chips had problems with Windows 11 before, but the latest Windows and AMD updates seemed to have solved them – at least in the tests I ran.

Overclocking, clock rates and thermals

The Core i9-12900K has a single-core boost of 5.2 GHz, which I have repeatedly achieved during testing. All-core frequencies are of course lower. In a 30-minute AIDA64 stress test, the chip reached an all-core frequency of 4.8 GHz and reached a peak value of 84 degrees Celsius with a power consumption of 210 W.

It's 84 degrees, but the Core i9-12900K didn't stay there long. AIDA64 is also a stress test that is still 16 degrees below the maximum operating temperature of 100 degrees. The chip usually stayed at 50 to 60 degrees Celsius under moderate load and only climbed higher when all cores were pushed to their limits.

As high-performance as it is, the Core i9-12900K has a high power requirement.

I dug into Intel's Extreme Tuning Utility (XTU) briefly to get a moderate overclock working. With Speed ​​Booster, I was able to increase the frequency to 5 GHz with the press of a single button. Originally this created a much higher temperature, but after putting my cooler back in place everything went smoothly.

Alder Lake chips are rectangular, so the tried and true pea method of applying thermal paste didn't cover the chip. I just spread the paste a little – not to the edges – as I put it back on to cover it completely. The temperatures have returned to normal.

Although the Speed ​​Booster allows you to overclock without any work, you can get higher clock speeds by manually optimizing the cores. I applied a 300MHz boost to all cores with the Intel Thermal Velocity Boost turned on and was able to hit 5.4GHz while using 300W of power. That is much. As powerful as it is, the Core i9-12900K follows in the footsteps of earlier Intel generations with high power requirements.

Pins on Core i9-12900K.

While there is still a lot of research to be done about how the P-Core and E-Core respond to overclocking, I noticed a few general trends during testing. The increase in the E-Core frequency did not have a major impact on power consumption, thermals or performance. The difference is workload specific, so overclocking your E-cores won't do anything for applications that primarily use the P-cores. On the flip side, the P-cores made up the majority of the performance and heat increases when overclocking, so it's best to be conservative with your P-core overclocks.

Our opinion

The Core i9-12900K represents many things for Intel, but most of all it represents a company ready to get competitive again. Even in the worst case, the Core i9-12900K is the same as the Ryzen 9 5950X – and at a significantly lower price. At best, it outperforms both the best that AMD has to offer and everything else on the market.

Power supply is a problem, as has been the case for the past several generations of Intel. However, high performance demands are much easier to swallow when extra power is on the table, and that's exactly what the Core i9-12900K offers.

Are there alternatives?

There's currently nothing on the desktop like the Core i9-12900K. The closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, although it's not nearly as fast as the Core i9-12900K.

How long it will take?

The Core i9-12900K will last for at least the next few years. When you buy a top of the range processor like the Core i9-12900K, you'll likely be upgrading before performance becomes a major concern.

Should you buy it?

Yes sir. At the moment there is nothing that works as well as the Core i9-12900K. That said, it uses a lot of power, so make sure you buy a hefty power adapter and cooler to go with it.

Editor's recommendations



01 Sep
Blog

Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 Review: Add Intel, Lose Speed

View of the Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 laptop fully open and sitting at an angle.

Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 in the test: It hurts when you choose Intel

RRP $ 735.00

“The Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 lost performance and battery life in the transition from AMD to Intel. Add a bad display and it's hard to recommend. "

advantages

  • Solid build quality

  • Comfortable keyboard and touchpad

  • Good speakers

  • Active pen included

disadvantage

  • Inconspicuous achievement

  • Mediocre battery life

  • Unacceptable ad

I tested the AMD Ryzen version of the Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5 14 convertible 2-in-1 laptop last year and found that it offers a ton of performance for a very attractive $ 600 price tag. It didn't quite make our list of the best budget laptops, but it came close. This year I was given the chance to review the 2021 update which won't change much – most importantly, Intel is up to date this time around. I was curious to see how this version fares.

I tested the $ 735 mid-range configuration of the IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 with a Core i5-1135G7, which is the right Intel chip to compare to the Ryzen 5 4500U in the previous review unit. That's barely a budget laptop price point (though it doubles the memory over the AMD machine), and I found the Intel version to offer a lower value proposition than last year's model. You can get a Core i3 for the more attractive $ 570, but you're giving up half the memory and storage. In the end, it proves why AMD continues to lead the way in budget laptops.

draft

The IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 has essentially the same construction as the previous model, only this time fiberglass is mixed with the plastic in the lid to give it a more stable feel. The rest of the case is made entirely of plastic but still feels solid – more so than some premium laptops that use magnesium alloy to reduce weight. Compared to the budget-conscious and fairly flexible Asus VivoBook Flip 14, which uses plastic in the case and aluminum alloy in the lid, the IdeaPad Flex 5i feels like a million dollars.

The IdeaPad's hinge is surprisingly good too, it's loose enough to open with one hand, but stiffens when it reaches an upright position to keep it in place in clamshell, tent, media, and tablet modes and hold in place. Overall, the build quality of the IdeaPad Flex 5i exceeds its price.

Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 folded into a tablet.

Mark Coppock / Digital Trends

Image of the Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 notebook folded back on the floor.

Mark Coppock / Digital Trends

Image of the Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 notebook folded back on the floor.

Mark Coppock / Digital Trends

The 2-in-1 retains its dark gray aesthetic, with just a touch of chrome in the Lenovo logo on the lid and keyboard deck. It's a very understated look, with a few angles to give it a streamlined look, but otherwise avoids any bling or oomph. Lenovo's budget and mid-range laptops have been minimalist in design for a number of years, and the IdeaPad Flex 5i is keeping that trend alive. The Asus VivoBook Flip 14 is a little more dynamic in its appearance, but that doesn't mean it looks better – it actually suffers from a lime green border around the Enter key that breaks up its color scheme. I'd say the IdeaPad Flex 5i looks better than it costs, and it won't make you feel like putting it to sleep when you take it to a posh coffee shop.

Like last year's model, however, the IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 is larger than it should be. The display bezels are thin on the sides but large at the top, and the chin is huge. That makes it deeper than necessary. It's also quite thick at 0.82 inches and a bit heavy at 3.3 pounds. The Lenovo Yoga 7i 14 (about $ 200 more than the IdeaPad) is 0.69 inches and 3.09 pounds, while the Asus VivoBook Flip 14 is 0.72 inches and 3.31 pounds. If there is one area where the IdeaPad Flex 5i proves its low price, it is the oversized chassis.

Connectivity is solid, with a proprietary power connector (though my review unit came with a USB-C charger), a USB-C 3.2 port, a full-size HDMI 1.4b port, and a 3.5mm audio jack on the left, and two USB-A 3.2 ports and a full-size SD card reader on the right. Unfortunately, there is no Thunderbolt 4 support, which is disappointing even at $ 735. Wi-Fi 6 and Bluetooth 5.0 offer wireless connectivity.

Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 right-hand USB ports and SD card port.

Mark Coppock / Digital Trends

Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 USB ports on the right.

Mark Coppock / Digital Trends

Charging port, micro USB port, HDMI port and headphone jack on the left side of the Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5i 14.

Mark Coppock / Digital Trends

power

We praised the AMD version of the IdeaPad Flex 5 for its performance thanks to the Ryzen 5 4500U. That was impressive back then, but what a difference a year makes. That's now a previous generation chip, and the new Ryzen 5000 series processors are significantly faster – and the delta between the previous version and the current 11th generation Intel version is also less significant. My test device equipped the Core i5-1135G7 to go with 16 GB RAM and a 512 GB Solid State Drive (SSD), so that we can compare not only with the previous model from AMD, but also with current laptops.

Don't bother playing.

In all cases, except against the Acer Aspire 5 with its Core i3-1115G4, which was included for a bit of contrast, the IdeaPad Flex 5i could not convince. With the exception of the 3DMark Time Spy test, it was slightly slower overall than the previous AMD model, including our Handbrake test which encodes a 420MB video as H.265. In all of our benchmarks, it was also slower than the other Core i5 laptops on our list, especially the Lenovo ThinkBook 13s Gen 2. The difference isn't huge, but it is enough to place the IdeaPad Flex 5i in the lower end of our comparison group .

In real use, I didn't notice that the IdeaPad Flex 5i is a slow laptop. On the other hand, virtually all modern laptops are fast enough to run Windows 10 and basic productivity tasks like web browsing, Office apps, and the like without slowing down. When you need an extra boost in performance for heavy-duty multitasking or more intense tasks, you may notice a hiccup or two. I would rate the performance as acceptable for the price, but nothing to write home about.

Geekbench (single / multiple) Handbrake
(Seconds)		 Cinebench R23 (single / multiple) PCMark 10 3DMark time spy
Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5i 14
(Core i5-1135G7)		 1397/4301 213 1325/4411 4550 1026
Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5 14 2020
(Ryzen 5 4500U)		 1096/4543 160 n / A n / A 957
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 (Ryzen 5 5500U) 1102/5432 131 1180/7579 5191 1099
Lenovo ThinkBook 13s Gen 2
(Core i5-1135G7)		 1406/5379 178 1357/5502 4668 1511
HP Envy 14 (Core i5-1135G7) 1549/5431 204 1399/4585 n / A 1380
Acer Aspire 5 2021 (Core i3-1115G4) 1215/2544 300 1274/3128 3752 652

Don't bother playing. The IdeaPad Flex 5i is limited to the Intel Iris Xe graphics and didn't do very well even for that chip. The 3DMark Time Spy test wasn't great, only reaching 16 frames per second (fps) at 1080p and high graphics in Fortnite. You'll want to look your gaming needs elsewhere.

advertisement

Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 screen.Mark Coppock / Digital Trends

The second time I turned on the IdeaPad Flex 5i 14, I knew that the 14-inch Full HD IPS display (1920×1080) would be its biggest weakness. The colors seemed unusual, the screen had an unpleasant yellow-green cast and the contrast didn't blow me away. I don't often respond that badly to a display, but this one was disappointing. Note that the display is in the old school 16: 9 aspect ratio, as larger displays haven't gotten that advanced on budget laptops.

My colorimeter has largely confirmed this subjective experience. Initially, the brightness was low at just 231 nits, well below our preferred threshold of 300 nits. This means that the display may be difficult to see in bright overhead lighting. At 800: 1, the contrast was better than I expected (but again below our preferred level, 1000: 1). The colors were very narrow with only 49% of AdobeRGB and 65% of sRGB – midrange and premium laptops are around 72% and 95% or better – and the color accuracy was just okay with a DeltaE of 2.37 ( 1.0 or less is excellent).

Yes, budget laptops often save on the display. For example, the Asus VivoBook Flip 14 was remarkably similar with 230 nits of brightness, a contrast ratio of 720: 1, 50% AdobeRGB and 66% sRGB, and a color accuracy of 2.62. However, that doesn't change the fact that these displays are not pleasant to use even for simple productivity work and are nowhere near what creatives are looking for.

The sound was better, with upward-facing speakers flanking the keyboard on either side. The volume was more than acceptable with no distortion, and while the bass was absent, the mids and highs were clear. These speakers allow you to watch Netflix and listen to music, which is better than most budget devices.

Close-up of the Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 stylus and speaker on the right.Mark Coppock / Digital Trends

Keyboard and touchpad

The IdeaPad Flex 5i has the standard Lenovo keyboard that you find on everything but the ThinkPad range. It's shallower than I'd like, but it has enough click and comfortable floor motion to allow precise typing. The generous key spacing and key size make this keyboard a good budget keyboard that is just a few steps behind great keyboards like the Specter line from HP and the Apple Magic Keyboard. Fast typists should get used to this keyboard quickly enough and familiarize themselves with it in a short time.

The touchpad is good too, with a decent size and a smooth and comfortable surface. The Microsoft Precision touchpad drivers enable the full suite of Windows 10 multi-touch gestures, all of which worked well. I have no complaints.

Image of the Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5i 14, with keyboard, trackpad and stylus.

Close-up of the Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 trackpad and stylus.

The touch display was responsive and Lenovo includes an active pen with 4,096 levels of pressure sensitivity. I found it pretty good for sketching (not that I'm an artist) and handwriting on the display, though the 14-inch display and overall mass of the 2-in-1 made it uncomfortable in tablet mode. Still, the pen in the box is a plus that few budget laptops can compete with. As an added bonus, take a close look at the materials included in the box and you'll find a tiny pen holder that plugs into a USB-A port and keeps the pen handy. This, of course, blocks both ports, so you'll have to remove the pin to connect a peripheral.

Finally, Windows 10 Hello support is provided through a fingerprint reader in the upper right corner of the keyboard deck. It was quick and reliable. Lenovo also outfitted the IdeaPad Flex 5i with its ThinkShutter privacy screen for the webcam – just slide it over it and the lens is physically blocked, giving you a touch of privacy.

Battery life

Image of an open Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 laptop lying on the floor.Mark Coppock / Digital Trends

The IdeaPad Flex 5i retains the 52.5 watt-hour battery of its predecessor, which, in combination with the Core i5 and the 14-inch Full HD display, made me wonder what longevity I can expect. The AMD model was just fine in terms of battery life and could potentially last a full day on one charge if you don't try too hard.

Overall, the battery life of the IdeaPad Flex 5i is disappointing.

According to our benchmarks, the Intel version is just below this all-day battery life threshold. It took us just 7.25 hours in our web browsing test, compared to the eight hours on the AMD version and 11.5 hours when looping our local Avengers test video, which took the AMD version 11 hours. So that's a hit, even though the web test gives a better idea of ​​productivity performance. The Asus VivoBook Flip 14 managed nine hours in the Internet surfing and 12 hours in the video test – certainly stronger values.

I also ran the PCMark 10 Applications battery test, which saw the IdeaPad Flex 5i last nine hours. That's only seven minutes less than the AMD version, but below the 10 or more hours we've seen as a minimum on most of the other laptops we tested. This is the best test of battery life, and the IdeaPad Flex 5i didn't do as well. It lasted almost two minutes in the PCMark 10 gaming battery test, which is about average for this test.

Overall, the battery life of the IdeaPad Flex 5i is disappointing. Like the AMD version, it can get you through a day of work if your workflow is easy, but doing real work without a plug-in can be a challenge.

Our opinion

For $ 600, the AMD version of the IdeaPad Flex 5 14 was a good bargain. At $ 735, with the main difference being a 512GB SSD versus a 256GB SSD, the latest IdeaPad Flex 5i isn't quite as attractive. It doesn't work that well and can't compete with some other laptops with the same CPU. The battery life is unimpressive and the display – albeit just as bad as on the previous version – is a real disappointment.

There are other laptops in this price range that are worth more for their money. The IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 lost its luster with the move to Intel, and I can't recommend much.

Are there alternatives?

The Asus VivoBook Flip 14 is about the same price and offers significantly better performance. The display and battery life aren't better, but at least you get a faster laptop that can handle more demanding workloads.

If you don't need a 2-in-1, the Asus ZenBook 13 OLED UM325UA is a great choice. It's only a few hundred dollars away from the IdeaPad Flex 5i, but it has much better performance, a beautiful and color-accurate OLED display, and a 1TB PCIe SSD. If your budget can handle it, the ZenBook 13 should be on your list.

Another 2-in-1 to consider is the HP Envy x360 13. It's an AMD machine too, and so much faster, and it has a much better display. It's a bit more expensive too, but well worth the extra money.

How long it will take?

The IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 offers a solid construction that should instill confidence after years of use. Its components are state-of-the-art, if not the fastest, so you can stay productive for just as long. You won't like the industry standard one year warranty.

Should you buy it?

No. Take the power of the AMD processor from its predecessor and add more than $ 100 in price, and the IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 isn't that big a bargain.

Editor's recommendations



13 Aug
Blog

Intel NUC 11 Extreme Review: A True Mini Gaming PC

Intel NUC 11 Extreme on a table.

Intel Beast Canyon NUC 11 Extreme in the test: A real mini gaming PC

RRP $ 1,180.00

"The NUC 11 Extreme is too expensive, but that still doesn't hold it back."

advantages

  • Keep calm

  • Solid processor performance

  • Full-size graphics card support

  • Excellent connectivity

disadvantage

  • Too expensive

  • Larger than previous NUCs

On my desk, where my gaming PC used to live, is an empty space that is now occupied by Intel's NUC 11 Extreme, also known as Beast Canyon. It's a barebones kit with welcome tradeoffs that balances desktop-like performance with a form factor smaller than a current game console.

It's too expensive, awkward compared to a full-size device, and a little too weak compared to a desktop chip. But I can't stop using the NUC 11 Extreme. It is an intelligently designed PC that only makes concessions when needed and exists in its own category.

That doesn't mean Beast Canyon is for everyone. It caters to a very specific market – those with an affinity for crafting who don't mind paying for interesting designs. That said, if you don't mind getting your hands dirty (and you have a spare graphics card) the NUC 11 Extreme is excellent.

design

The side of an Intel NUC 11 Extreme.

In 2012, Intel presented the concept of NUC or Next Unit of Computing for the first time. a graphics card). The heart of the PC is the compute element, which you can unplug like a graphics card.

The new NUC 11 Extreme is a tiny PC, but not as small as previous versions. The 8 liter chassis is 14.1 inches long, 7.1 inches high and 4.7 inches wide. The NUC 9 Extreme is larger at 8.5 inches, but much shorter and a little less wide. It also doesn't support full size graphics cards like Beast Canyon.

That is the compromise with Beast Canyon. It's larger than previous NUCs and other mini-PCs, but it supports a full-length graphics card. You can't have and eat your cake, and I'm pleased with the compromises Intel has made. As I will learn in the next few sections, the NUC 11 Extreme still beats its weight class despite its slightly larger size.

This becomes clear when you compare it to other small form factor options. The Cooler Master MasterBox NR200P is one of the smaller Mini-ITX cases that supports a full-size GPU and is still 10 liters larger than the NUC 11 Extreme. There are smaller NUC cases like the Razer Tomahawk, but this device has an older computing element and is more expensive than the NUC 11 Extreme.

The star of the show is a massive RGB skull on the front of the NUC 11 that connects to ambient RGB strips that illuminate the bottom of the case. Fortunately, you can tweak the LEDs and turn them off if you want. With the included NUC Software Studio you can control the skull and the front, right and left LEDs independently of each other.

Skull on the Intel NUC 11 Extreme.

It's a decent suite that lets you set a solid color or set standard RGB modes like strobe or breathing. You can also use the NUC Software Studio to monitor system temperature and usage, change your fan curve, and switch between processor performance modes.

While the NUC Software Studio offers a decent list of options, it's a little flawed. The software is easy to bounce around, but it would constantly get stuck for a second or two after I changed a setting. It's not a deal breaker, but the NUC Software Studio doesn't feel good.

For my tests, I stayed in balanced fan mode to see the curve Intel intended. There are a trio of 92mm fans under the top to keep everything cool, and they never got loud enough to bother me while testing (even on a Cinebench R23 loop). They make noise, but the NUC 11 Extreme is remarkably quiet given its size. The NUC 11 Extreme was silent when answering emails or hanging out online.

Connectivity

Intel could have reduced the number of ports on the NUC 11 Extreme, but didn't. As with many aspects of the kit, you give up surprisingly little when compared to a full-sized desktop. You are spoiled for port options with the NUC 11 Extreme, and in some ways it goes beyond some full-size PCs.

Front connectors on Intel NUC 11 Extreme.

On the front you have quick access to two USB 3.1 ports, a headphone / microphone combo jack and an SDXC card slot. This turned out to be sufficient in my tests, although I missed a USB-C port on the front. I often use an external Samsung T5 SSD to swap games between PCs and it would have been nice to just toss it in front of the case.

Instead, I had to plug it in at the back, but that wasn't a problem. Even in this small size, Intel manages to accommodate six USB 3.1 Gen 2 ports, 2.5G Ethernet and two Thunderbolt 4 ports on the back of the case. The motherboard also has an HDMI 2.0b output in case you want to use the integrated graphics.

Of course, HDMI out isn't all you have access to when you plug in a graphics card. It's only there to provide the built-in graphics option. So when you add a graphics card, you also have access to the ports it has. In the case of the RTX 3060 in my test device, this included a single HDMI and three DisplayPort outputs.

Back ports on Intel NUC 11 Extreme.

Compared to the NUC 9 Extreme, this device adds two more USB ports on the back and upgrades the Thunderbolt ports from Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt 4. Even if you run out of ports – which is unlikely given the eight USB ports surrounding the case – you can always throw a Thunderbolt dock into the equation to further expand your connectivity.

For wireless connectivity, the NUC 11 Extreme contains Intel's AX201 chip, which offers dual-band Wi-Fi 6 and Bluetooth 5.2.

Internals

Intel offers the NUC in two configurations: either with a Core i7-11700B or a Core i9-11900KB. As with all NUCs, you will need to bring your own graphics card, SSD, RAM, and operating system. Everything else you need is already in the compute element or in the housing. This includes a 650W 80+ Gold power supply and an Intel AX201 chip.

Central processor Intel Core i9-11900KB or Intel Core i7-11700B
GPU Support for full-size dual-slot GPU or Intel UHD 750
Storage Up to 64 GB dual-channel SO-DIMM DDR4
storage Up to two PCIe 4.0 M.2 SSDs, up to two PCIe 3.0 M.2 SSDs
Power supply 650W 80+ gold
USB ports Up to 12, including eight
Thunderbolt ports Two Thunderbolt 4
Networking 2.5G Ethernet, dual band WiFi 6
Bluetooth Bluetooth 5.2
Ports Headphone / microphone connection, SDXC reader, HDMI 2.0b

My test device was equipped with the Core i9-11900KB computing element, a souped-up laptop chip that is part of the 10 nm Tiger Lake family. In short, it should not be confused with the desktop Core i9-11900K, which is built by Intel using the 14 nm process and requires more than twice the performance.

The Core i9-11900KB is a 65W chip, but it is still equipped with eight cores and 16 threads and can accelerate up to 4.9 GHz based on Intel specifications. My chip never reached this speed during the test, but it got close at just over 4.8 GHz. The slightly cheaper Core i7-11700B still comes with eight cores and 16 threads, but with a slightly lower clock rate.

Both chips come with integrated graphics, but I was disappointed to find that they use Intel UHD graphics, not Iris Xe like many Tiger Lake mobile chips. As I'll get into in a moment, if you're going to get any decent gaming performance out of Beast Canyon, you need a discrete GPU.

Otherwise, the NUC 11 Extreme supports whatever you can get it to do. This includes up to 64 GB of dual-channel DDR4 laptop memory (SO-DIMM), a dual-slot graphics card and up to four M.2 SSDs, one of which you have to install in the computing element.

Opening everything is a breeze. There's some nice attention to detail here from Intel, including the tiny captive screws on the backplate, a handy door to unlock the compute element, and an SSD slot on the bottom so you can quickly upgrade your storage.

Intel NUC 11 Extreme with no GPU installed.

Once you've removed the side panels, the NUC 11 Extreme opens and offers unprecedented access in this small form. The top cover with three fans can be folded up so that you have all parts of the case free. And there's not much going on inside.

Most of the PC is in the compute element, so you have a small specially designed motherboard, power supply, compute element, and GPU if you have one installed. The NUC 11 Extreme has exactly what it needs, reducing the fat that often comes with small builds.

It's not without its problems, however. The latch for the PCIe slot of the graphics card can hardly be reached when the card is installed. I had to slide the back end of a screwdriver between the GPU and the computing element to open it, and you need to remove the GPU before you can get to the computing element.

Support for full-size graphics cards should also be marked with a large asterisk. It's true that you can plug a full-length dual-slot GPU into the NUC 11 Extreme, but that's about it. That doesn't take into account the additional modular power cables that have to share the space with the rear end of the GPU.

The NUC 11 Extreme has exactly what it needs, reducing the fat that often comes with small builds.

However, dual slot is the limit. If your cooler protrudes even slightly beyond the dual-slot mark, it will not fit into the NUC 11 Extreme. Nvidia Founder's Edition cards could also be a problem. The RTX 3080, for example, has a fan on both sides. In this case, a fan would sit directly on the back of the power supply unit.

Overall, though, this is the most enjoyable small form factor experience I've ever had. I have a few minor issues with the graphics card slot and the extra cables, but these are easy to miss with Intel's clear focus on the building experience. The NUC 11 Extreme is still an argument for barebones, small PCs.

The most disappointing part of the NUC 11 Extreme is that you can't buy it all. Adding RAM, SSD, and Windows is easy, but Beast Canyon really shines with an installed GPU. And adding the price of an expensive graphics card to the NUC 11 Extreme's already high price tag is a tough sell.

But the premium makes sense. Something like the NUC 11 Extreme cannot be built with off-the-shelf parts. However, if you're willing to shop around and have a mini-ITX graphics card, there are options like the Velka 3 that are actually smaller than the NUC 11 Extreme.

Processor power

To get back to the raw power of Beast Canyon, it's more powerful than I expected. The Core i9-11900KB isn't quite on par with a full desktop piece, but it doesn't have to be in such a small package. There's a little compromise, but it's much smaller than it should be given the size of Beast Canyon.

I started testing with PCMark 10, which gives a good overview of performance on a long list of tasks. The NUC 11 Extreme achieved an overall score of 7,520, which is just below the MSI Aegis RS 10 – a mid-tower desktop with a full-size Core i9-10900K. He also beat the flagship Tiger Lake in the HP Elite Dragonfly Max with almost 3,000 more points.

Computing element in Intel NUC 11 Extreme.

PCMark 10 is also demanding. The processor reached a maximum temperature of 93 degrees Celsius during the benchmark, but never clocked down. Even when it was struck, my i9-11900KB continued to climb slightly above 4.8 GHz.

Next up was Cinebench R23, which pushes processors to their limits by forcing them to render a complex 3D image. Here the Core i9-11900KB achieved a single-core score of 1,636 and a multi-core score of 11,424. The multi-core score is in the upper range, but a desktop Core i9-10900K can still beat it by around 30%. Every other Tiger Lake chip doesn't even come close, however.

The Core i9-11900KB even beats the desktop Core i9-10900K by around 23% in the single-core test. While Cinebench performed strongly, it did reveal some weaknesses in Intel's design. According to HWiNFO64, the Core i9-11900KB reached its maximum operating temperature of 100 degrees Celsius before it clocked down to 3.4 GHz. Even with a solid cooling solution, the NUC 11 Extreme is prone to throttling when it's pushed to the limit.

GeekBench 5 is nowhere near as demanding and the NUC 11 Extreme has once again proven its strengths. Similar to PCMark 10, the Core i9-11900KB beats the desktop Core i9-10900K in the single-core test and just under second place in the multi-core test. It also shot way ahead of the NUC 9 Extreme, beating the older device by about 23%.

It's a competent counterpoint to a desktop chip and outperforms all of the other Tiger Lake offerings available.

Handbrake told a similar story. The NUC 11 Extreme reduced our coding time of the Elysium trailer by 13 seconds compared to the NUC 9 Extreme. However, Handbrake showed that the Core i9-11900KB is still essentially a mobile part. Compared to the desktop Core i9-10900K, the chip was a full 30 seconds slower.

Finally, I reached out to PugetBench for Premiere Pro to see how the NUC 11 Extreme would handle video editing. This type of machine seems perfect for the job and my results confirm it. Overall, it scores above a desktop Core i9-10900K, which is configured with an RTX 3060 and 32 GB of RAM. However, this is mainly due to the smooth playback performance, as the NUC 11 Extreme lagged behind the desktop in terms of export and GPU values.

With the NUC 11 Extreme you don't get the full performance of a desktop chip, but with less than half the wattage, that shouldn't come as a surprise. It's a competent counterpoint to a desktop chip and outperforms all of the other Tiger Lake offerings available. Heat was an issue in Cinebench, but this benchmark is a bit of a stress test. There should be no throttling for most tasks.

Gaming performance

I only did a few gaming tests with the NUC 11 Extreme as it doesn't actually come with a graphics card. Your performance will depend on what you put into it. Nevertheless, I wanted to get an overview of how the RTX 3060 would behave in my test device compared to one in a full desktop. And good for Intel, there is practically no difference.

The NUC 11 Extreme averaged exactly the same frame rate in Fortnite at 1080p Epic settings as a desktop configured with a Core i9-10900K and RTX 3060. Up to 1440p, only three frames separated the NUC 11 Extreme from the desktop, with the NUC averaging 83 fps (frames per second) and the desktop averaging 86 fps.

Intel NUC 11 has opened.

That was also the case in Civilization VI, where the NUC averaged 141 fps at 1080p Ultra and the desktop 143 fps. At 1440p with the same settings, the two machines were within a frame of each other. The NUC 11 Extreme's side panel gives the GPU a lot of headroom, and based on my limited testing, cards should work about as well as they would in a desktop.

When you order a NUC, you won't get this performance without adding a graphics card. The UHD graphics in the Core i9-11900KB are pitifully slow for games. They are available, but a bit not an option. In fact, I couldn't complete my 1440p tests because the built-in graphics just wouldn't hold up.

3DMark Time Spy showed how big the difference is. With the RTX 3060 installed, the NUC 11 Extreme achieved a total of 8,953 points. Without a GPU, the device only scored 828 points, less than a tenth of what the RTX 3060 could achieve. Even in Fortnite, I couldn't go over the 1080p High settings as the integrated GPU only averaged 15 fps.

Civilization VI was slightly better at 1080p with medium settings, but even then the UHD graphics only averaged 23 fps. The built-in graphics are not suitable for gaming unless you are ready to shut down to 720p and run on low settings, and even then, some games may have problems.

You should clearly add a GPU to the NUC 11 Extreme. The built-in graphics aren't very good, but the good news is that between a full-sized desktop and the NUC 11, you're practically not giving up when it comes to GPU performance. The design of the chassis allows a lot of air inside, so most cards should hold up.

Our opinion

The NUC 11 Extreme is excellent – as long as you can handle its high price. The kit starts at $ 1,150 for the i7-11700B, and that doesn't include an operating system, RAM, an SSD, or, more critically, a graphics card. Add those in and you're looking at a machine that easily costs over $ 2,000 without a high-end GPU.

It's way too expensive, but that's the point. You already know if the NUC 11 Extreme is right for you. It is not a machine trying to get a certain price or offer a certain value. Instead, it offers an excellent, small form factor design, a unique way to design a computer, and performance that even full-size desktops are a race for their money.

If you've looked at the NUC jealously, it will meet your expectations – provided you have a graphics card to plug in.

Are there alternatives?

There are other mini PCs out there, but nothing compares to the NUC 11 Extreme. Unless you're looking for a boutique case and configuring your own rig, there is no other machine that packs as much power as the NUC 11 Extreme in this small case. Most Mini-ITX cases are not only larger, but also more difficult to use.

That said, you can save some money by building your own machine if you're okay with a slightly larger case or if you can settle for a mini-ITX GPU.

How long it will take?

The whole point of a NUC is that you can upgrade it with a new computing element over time. Assuming Intel continues to ship them, you can use the NUC 11 Extreme until the power supply fails.

Should you buy it?

Yes, as long as you know what you're getting yourself into. The NUC 11 Extreme is not just a mini PC. So, if you're looking for something to set up and forget, a machine like the M1 Mac Mini is probably better.

Editor's recommendations



15 Apr
Blog

Intel NUC 9 Extreme Kit Ghost Canyon Review: All Potential

Intel Ghost Canyon

Intel NUC 9 Extreme Kit "Ghost Canyon" test: all possibilities

"Intel's NUC 9 Extreme Kit is a unique vision of computing, but far from perfect."

  • Extremely small

  • Modular structure with upgrade potential

  • Excellent connectivity, including Thunderbolt 3

  • Upgrades are more difficult than expected

  • Loud fan

I built a plywood computer case earlier this year. With a height of 9 inches and a depth of 5.5 inches, it is an extremely small system. I spent a good thirty hours researching, designing, and optimizing the case that now houses my main desktop PC. It was an enjoyable and rewarding project.

But I could have just waited for the Intel NUC 9 Extreme Kit.

The NUC 9 Extreme kit I received for review had an Intel Core i9-9980HK processor, 16 GB RAM, an Nvidia RTX 2070 graphics card from Asus and two solid-state hard drives: One Kingston 2 TB Drive paired with a 380 GB Intel Optane ride. Note that the NUC 9 Extreme Kit usually does not contain any memory, memory or a graphics card.

With these components, it is way ahead of my personal desktop with a Ryzen 5 3500 processor and the GTX 1650 Super from Nvidia. However, the Intel NUC 9 Extreme Kit ($ 1,700) is slightly smaller. It is a few tenths of an inch less deep and tall and almost two inches narrower.

No system I've reviewed offers more performance per square inch. The latest NUC is a fascinating, unique and ultimately faulty experiment in compact gaming PCs.

Design and ports

Oddly enough, the Intel NUC 9 Extreme Kit basically looks like a NUC. I find it strange because I expected a more drastic redesign given the performance gap. Nevertheless, it has the same square, round appearance as previous NUC devices.

NUC fans might be surprised by its mass, which is many times higher than that of any previous device in the NUC range. However, most people will think the system is tiny. Its volume is approximately 5 liters. In comparison, the XPS Special Edition desktop from Dell – our top desktop for most people – takes up almost 25 liters of space.

Intel Ghost CanyonIntel NUC 9 Extreme Kit (left) and home-made plywood desktop (right) Matthew Smith / Digital Trends

That's a big difference. Though larger than in the past, the NUC 9 is small enough to be stowed almost anywhere you want. Place it on your desktop, on a shelf, or even in a closet (if you can guarantee adequate airflow). It is important that it remains small enough to be easily used as a home theater PC.

The NUC 9 has an industrial appearance that does not communicate its unique approach. Apart from the skull logo that is used on other game-oriented NUC devices, there is nothing in this PC to indicate performance. Personally, I don't mind. I will do the job every day of the week.

The excellent selection of ports speaks for the dual approach of the NUC 9.

And it works. At the front, the NUC 9 offers two USB-A 3.1 connections, a combined headphone / microphone connection and an SDXC card reader. On the back you will find four more USB-A 3.1 ports, two Gigabit LAN ports, DisplayPort, HDMI 2.0 and DVI. There are also two Thunderbolt 3 ports, a rare thing that is still unusual on PC desktops.

It is an excellent selection of ports that speak for the dual purpose of the NUC 9. It can hold a graphics card for games, but can also serve as a small workstation for a videographer, photographer, streamer, or other creator. The wired connectivity is rounded off by the support of Wi-Fi 6 and Bluetooth 5.

Internals and upgrades

The NUC 9 Extreme Kit would be fascinating if it were “just” a powerful, pint-sized PC, but there's more to it than that. It contains the Intel Compute Element, which is a working PC that is pressed onto a PCI Express card that is smaller than most graphics cards. The compute element houses the processor, memory and hard drive – although the NUC 9 Extreme Kit is only supplied with the processor. You must purchase the storage and hard drive separately.

Intel's focus for the compute element is on upgradeability and customization. In theory, this step offers NUC 9 owners an excellent upgrade path. The processor, RAM, hard drive, graphics card and power supply can be replaced.

I could even say it's better than a regular desktop because you don't have to worry about replacing the motherboard. By exchanging the computing element, you can also update your port selection, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.

That is the pitch. Does it work in practice?

Intel Ghost CanyonWorking with these connections is cumbersome Matthew Smith / Digital Trends

I was disappointed to find that the modular structure of the NUC 9 was difficult. Opening the case is easy enough. Simply remove two screws and slide the top back. However, the adapted compute element is decorated with numerous connections at unfavorable angles. These must be carefully removed.

In my experience, gamers who want to upgrade a rig are afraid because they don't want to break an expensive PC. The NUC 9 does not solve this problem.

Intel Ghost CanyonComputing element (closed) Matthew Smith / Digital Trends

As soon as the connections are removed and one last screw is loosened, the Compute Element slides freely like any other PCI Express card. The element is a plastic cover on a circuit board that contains the processor, memory (in the form of two SODIMMs) and solid-state memory.

The processor cannot be removed while memory and memory can be replaced. It is a mobile chip that, like other NUC devices, is permanently connected. That is why the compute element is important. You cannot replace the processor without them. This means that at least a processor upgrade is possible.

Intel Ghost CanyonCalculate item (open) Matthew Smith / Digital Trends

What computer elements will be available and how much will they cost? Intel's roadmap is not precise. However, the company has promised that future Compute Elements will be backward compatible. Intel plans new Compute Element models for 2021 and 2022. Partner companies will also sell standalone Compute Element upgrades.

Personally, I tend to believe Intel's plan. The company has supported the NUC line for years, even though it only makes up part of its overall business.

I expect processor options to be limited compared to a standard desktop, but it might make sense to swap flexibility for simplicity and size. The subtle differences between processors are not relevant to most people, including most enthusiasts. If Intel (or partners) can simply offer a Core i5, i7 and i9 computing element for every future generation of mobile processors, I think that's appropriate. And I'm convinced that Intel will do it.

Processor power

As mentioned earlier, the Intel NUC 9 Extreme Kit I received had an Intel Core i9-9980HK processor, 16 GB of memory, and an Nusidia RTX 2070 graphics card built by Asus. The Core i9-9980HK is not the most modern processor since it was launched almost a year ago. Still, it's a top-notch option in the Intel range of mobile chips, which offers eight cores, 16 threads, and a maximum turbo boost frequency of 5 GHz.

The i9-9980HK ran as expected. Geekbench 5 achieved a single-core score of 1,232 and a multi-core score of 7,312. These numbers are in the baseball stadium of the Core i9-9980HK laptops we tested. The Apple MacBook Pro 16 was a little slower and the Acer ConceptD 9 a little faster. Remember that while the NUC 9 is a desktop, its processor is a mobile component.

While the i9-9980HK performs well in Geekbench 5, the latest AMD components express it. We recently tested the Asus Zephyrus G14 with AMD's new Ryzen 9 4900HS. It was competitive with the NUC 9 in the single core and won in the multi core. This is not good for the Intel i9-9980HK. The Asus Zephyrus G14 is a small gaming notebook. So you wouldn't expect the NUC 9 to beat it, but its victory is clear.

Other benchmarks tell a similar story. Our handbrake benchmark, which uses popular video encoding software to transcode a 4K movie trailer, was completed on the NUC 9 in 114 seconds. That is hardly in front of the Acer ConceptD 9, but behind the Asus Zephyrus G14. The Core i9-9980HK also falls behind the Intel Core i9-9900K, a processor for desktops.

I saw a Cinebench R20 of 3,348 from NUC 9. This is also slightly above most laptops with the same chip, but not at the top of the class.

I don't think this processor performance will lower it in 2020 – not at a retail price of $ 1,700.

It's worth noting that the Core i9-9980HK isn't a problem despite these mixed results. It easily defeats the currently available mobile processors of the Intel Core i7 H series. It also easily defeats previous NUC desktops. This is a fast processor capable of handling heavy workloads like 4K content creation or high resolution photo editing. It will shame the majority of laptops and keep up with some mid-tower desktops.

However, I don't think this processor performance will affect 2020 – not at a retail price of $ 1,700 excluding RAM, hard drive, and graphics card that aren't included in the kit.

Gaming performance

As already mentioned, the Intel NUC 9 Extreme Kit does not contain a graphics card. You have to get one yourself so that your mileage varies depending on the graphics card you bought. The NUC 9 can be used for dual-wide graphics cards with a length of up to 20 cm. My test device came with an Asus RTX 2070 that fits into the NUC 9, so I tried it out.

I started with 3DMark, where the NUC 9 had a fire strike score of 17,932 and a time spy score of 8,350. This is exactly what I would expect from an Nvidia RTX 2070 desktop packaging. The RTX 2070 Super is slightly faster and achieves 10,136 points in a testbed desktop packing Intel Core i9-9900K. The desktop class RTX 2070 of the NUC 9, however, easily defeats any laptop incarnation of the RTX 2070 we tested.

Fortnite was a breeze. An average of 141 frames per second with a resolution of 1080p and epic details as well as 90 frames per second with a resolution of 1440p and epic details were generated. These numbers are not surprising for a desktop that packs Nvidia's RTX 2070, but they easily outperform laptops with RTX 2070 hardware. The Razer Blade 15 with Nvidia RTX 2070 Max-Q only reaches 72 frames per second under the same conditions. The small size of the NUC 9 clearly doesn't hold it back.

Assassin's Creed Odyssey, our most demanding game benchmark, slowed down the NUC 9 – but only with a resolution of 1440p.

Civilization VI performed exceptionally well. It averaged 120 fps at 1080p and Ultra Detail with 2x MSAA turned on and still 100 fps at 1440p and the same settings. These numbers place a large gap between the NUC 9 and laptops with Nvidia RTX 2070 hardware.

Assassin's Creed Odyssey, our most demanding game benchmark, slowed down the NUC 9 – but only with a resolution of 1440p. The NUC 9 averaged a very respectable 57 fps at 1080p and ultra high details, but only reached 47 fps at 1440p and ultra high. While the NUC once again outperforms laptops with RTX 2070 hardware, it falls slightly behind our testbed desktop with an RTX 2060 Super, which averaged 51 fps at 1440p and ultra high.

Since the Intel NUC 9 Extreme Kit doesn't come with a GPU, the main question is: does the CPU hold the system in any way? I think the answer is definitely "no". The Core i9-9980HK is a powerful processor with a strong balance between single-core and multi-core performance. However, it is not the new sharpness and is currently surpassed by newer processors that have just been launched by Intel and AMD.

Heat and fan noise

The NUC 9 Extreme Kit has a lot to offer, but its performance is not without consequences. Packing a large amount of hardware in a small space can make cooling difficult, and the NUC 9 encounters this problem.

Intel Ghost CanyonMatthew Smith / Digital Trends

Fan noise is the real problem. The NUC 9 has several small fans, including those in the power supply and in the processor itself. These fans sometimes have to spin quickly, which inevitably makes a racket. Even worse, the mesh side panels of the NUC 9 do not isolate the sound.

This results in a loud little desktop. The fans of the NUC 9 often race in action and sound at maximum speed ready to drown out your robot vacuum. The fans are unpredictable and hard and bounce between high and low speed states.

Price and availability

The NUC 9 Extreme Kit is expected to retail for $ 1,700 when it arrives at Intel's channel partners next month. Intel also has retail Core i5 and i7 models for $ 1,050 and $ 1,250, respectively. These will arrive within three months.

Our opinion

The Intel NUC 9 Extreme Kit is an experiment that is promising but not quite working. The compute element is a fascinating way to give a very small desktop upgradability. Unfortunately, it's not as intuitive as I hoped.

The NUC 9 Extreme Kit is also held up by its sky-high retail price of $ 1,700 – without memory, memory, or a graphics card, all of which must be purchased separately.

Is there a better alternative?

It depends on what you're looking for.

The unique modular design of the NUC 9 Extreme Kit leaves it out without direct competitors. However, you can also combine it with other small PCs such as the Apple Mac Mini or smaller incarnations of the Lenovo ThinkCentre and the HP Z Workstations. The Intel NUC 9 could be a compelling little workstation due to its excellent port selection and promises of future upgrades, although I'm not sure if its processor performance is competitively priced. It's a great mobile chip, but in some systems you can find standard desktop components at a comparable price.

The NUC 9 is simply too expensive as a gaming desktop. A system configured like the one I tested would set you back between $ 2,400 and $ 2,800, depending on the exact components you purchase and the sales you may be able to make. That is simply too much for the service offered. With an RTX 2070 Super, you can easily grab a desktop for that price, and it doesn't have to be much bigger. The Origin Chronos and Falcon Northwest Tiki are less well known alternatives.

How long it will take?

Like most high-performance desktops, the Intel NUC 9 Extreme Kit remains useful for many years. It will easily take a decade or more, although after a few years it will obviously fade compared to new hardware.

Intel grants a 3-year standard warranty on NUC hardware. That's unusual. Most competitors only give a 1 year warranty.

Should you buy one?

No. The Intel NUC 9 Extreme Kit, as it exists today, works better as a thought experiment than an everyday desktop.

Editor's recommendations




21 Mar
Blog

Intel Frost Canyon NUC (NUC 10i7FNHAA) Review: Big Win

Intel Frost Canyon NUC

Intel Frost Canyon NUC (NUC 10i7FNHAA) review: Big win for developers

"Intel's Frost Canyon NUC is powerful, yet surprisingly easy to update."

  • Small form factor

  • Solid CPU performance

  • Easy to update RAM, hard drive

  • Energy efficient

  • Many ports (for its size)

  • Very poor game performance

  • CPU cannot be replaced

  • Loud

Small PCs are usually associated with compromises that are often lacking adjustments, future upgrades, power supply and port selection.

Then there is Intel NUC (short for Next Unit of Computing), which makes these functions his selling point. For this reason, this long line of miniature PCs, which is now seven years old, is unique.

The NUC I'm looking at today, officially called NUC10i7FNHAA, is one of the most powerful so far. It has a 10th generation Intel Core i7 processor with six cores, a 256 GB solid-state drive, a 1 TB SATA hard drive, 16 GB RAM and Windows 10 Home.

In contrast to some of the NUC systems I have tested, it is sold as a fully functional PC and not as a barebone. It contains everything you need at a price of $ 1,049. Is it the ultimate mini PC?

Design and ports

There is not much to say about the external devices of the Intel NUC10i7FNHAA. If you've ever seen a NUC, it looks similar. It offers the dark gunmetal exterior of other newer NUCs instead of the silver of previous models. It has a glossy black plastic lid.

The size of NUC has not changed significantly over the years. This model is 4.4 cm wide, 4.4 cm deep and two cm tall. It is not the thinnest NUC, but also not the thickest and many times smaller than a typical desktop PC.

Intel Frost Canyon NUCMatt Smith / Digital Trends

Nevertheless, it has many ports. The front offers a USB-A 3.1 port, a USB-C 3.1 port and a headphone jack.

On the back you will find a Thunderbolt 3 port, two additional USB-C 3.1 ports, Ethernet and HDMI output. Thunderbolt 3 is particularly nice to have. While it is common on laptops, it is still rare on PC desktops. This is a solid connectivity area that covers most options, though the lack of DisplayPort could bother some.

Internals and updateability

Due to its size, the tiny body of the Frost Canyon NUC can be expected to hide complex internals. That's not the case. Intel has been around for seven years, and it shows.

You open the NUC by unscrewing the four feet on the underside of the machine. After loosening (they cannot be completely removed, so you cannot lose them), the base plate loosens with a jerk.

Intel Frost Canyon NUCMatt Smith / Digital Trends

This provides access to the RAM-SO-DIMMS, the smaller sticks that you would normally find in a laptop instead of larger desktop DIMMS. You also have access to the M.2 drive and hard drive. This is all you can replace in the NUC10i7FNHAA since the CPU is soldered to the mainboard.

Upgrade options are limited. There is no free RAM slot, no free M.2, no free SATA. What is installed is all the desktop can handle.

However, these parts can be easily removed and replaced if necessary. The NUC10i7FNHAA supports up to 64 GB of RAM, far more than the 16 GB installed.

There are restrictions on what a NUC can handle due to its small size, but what is available is impressive.

You will find a few open headers in it, but most users won't care. This includes two empty USB 2.0 headers and a FRONT_PANEL header.

There are, of course, limitations to what a NUC can do due to its small size, but what is available is impressive. The components that you can update are easy to find and are immediately accessible after removing just a handful of screws. I would argue that the Frost Canyon NUC is easier to maintain than most desktops sold by major manufacturers.

CPU performance

The Frost Canyon NUC I tested, model number 10i7FNHAA, had an Intel Core i7-10710U processor. This is a 12-thread mobile processor with six cores and a base frequency of only 1.1 GHz, but a maximum turbo frequency of 4.7 GHz.

It is a powerful chip. Geekbench 5 delivered a single-core result of 1,099 and a multi-core result of 5,702. These numbers don't break records, but exceed most laptops and small desktops. The Dell XPS 13 7390, which we tested with the same processor, achieved a higher score of 1,250 in the single-core test, but stayed behind with a score of 5,491 in the multi-core test.

Intel Frost Canyon NUCMatt Smith / Digital Trends

For comparison: An HP Specter x360 13 with a Core i7-1056G7 achieved 1,164 points in the Geekbench 5 single-core test and 3,981 points in the multi-core test. The only mobile chips that can significantly outperform the Core i7-10710U are Core i9 silicon, like the Core i9-9880H in the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme Gen 2. It achieved 5 single-core and multi-core in Geekbench Test 1,196 and 6,529 points. respectively.

The NUC 10i7FNHAA's performance is solid at $ 1,049. Desktops and all-in-one devices from major brands usually offer a Core i5 processor like the Core i5 9400 at this price. This processor is somewhat competitive with the Core i7-10710U, but will fall behind in most cases.

In addition to Geekbench, I started Cinebench R15. My Frost Canyon NUC scored 980 points there. This is less impressive, but still acceptable for the price. I noticed that the NUC had to accelerate during this test. The first test run achieved a higher result with 1,180 points, but successful test runs always achieved a value in the range of 900. The number of points I reported of 980 is the average of 5 test runs.

Our handbrake benchmark, which encodes a 420MB 4K video file from H.264 to H.265, took just over two and a half minutes. The Dell XPS 13 7390, which had the same Core i7-10710U processor, was three minutes slower. The NUC 10i7FNHAA even beats some laptops with Core i9 processors, like the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme Gen 2.

This NUC can meet the needs of many photo and video editors, developers and engineers.

Intel introduces this Frost Canyon NUC, the 10i7FNHAA, as a small workstation that is suitable for many content creators. It works well enough for that as long as you don't work with cutting-edge content like 8K videos. There you need a more powerful computer.

However, this NUC can meet the needs of many photo and video editors, developers, engineers, etc. Call it appropriate. That may not sound like much praise, but given the price of $ 1,049 and the small footprint, it would be stupid to expect more. This is a powerful PC for its price.

Player, look somewhere else

What about games? It’s not great. The fast Core i7-10710U processor does not contain the latest graphics from Intel, but the older Intel UHD solution. It scored only 1,288 in 3D Mark Fire Strike and only 490 in Time Spy.

These values ​​are solid for Intel UHD. However, Intel's Iris Plus graphics are about twice as fast. And even a discrete entry-level graphics solution like the GTX 1650 Max-Q from Nvidia can score over 3,000 points in Time Spy. That's six times faster than Intel UHD.

In summary, you can not play most modern games.

In summary, you can not play most modern games. A title with relatively simple 3D graphics such as Fortnite or World of Warcraft may offer acceptable performance with a resolution below 1080p and low graphics settings. Everything else demands too much.

The Frost Canyon NUC has a Thunderbolt 3 port, through which an external graphics dock can be connected. However, given the price of an external graphics dock, it's not a great solution for games. You're better off with an entry-level gaming desktop.

power consumption

Size is not the only advantage of a desktop based on mobile hardware. The use of mobile hardware also significantly reduces power consumption. Intel's Frost Canyon NUC consumes power under a variety of workloads.

The system only consumes 9.8 watts when idle. This is equivalent to many 13-inch laptops and less than most 15-inch systems. Desktop consumption can be very high, but it rarely happens that a desktop consumes less than 20 watts when idle. Therefore, the power consumption of the NUC is excellent.

Intel Frost Canyon NUCMatt Smith / Digital Trends

In Cinebench, power consumption reached a maximum of 98 watts and then held at 57 watts after thermal throttling had limited the processor. This is again comparable to modern laptops. Mid-range desktops that I tested easily exceeded 100 watts in the benchmark.

Low electricity consumption means lower electricity costs and less impact on the environment. It can also mean less fan noise. Unfortunately, this is not the case here. The Frost Canyon NUC turned out to be an exuberant PC puck, the fan of which was audibly buzzing even when idling. It's good that the NUC is small, as you may need to place it out of earshot.

Our opinion

The Intel NUC 10i7FNHAA, like the NUC models before, is a unique interpretation of what a desktop should be. It is not for everyone, but it is absolutely fulfilling its mission. The NUC is simple, compact and energy-efficient. It accomplishes all three goals and is one of the best mini PCs I've tested.

Is there a better alternative?

It depends on what you want.

If you only want a desktop and are not interested in the size, there are numerous options available worldwide. Dell's XPS desktops are consistently among our best desktops and remain our first choice.

Apple's Mac Mini is the best known alternative. However, it is a bit bigger, almost 20 cm wide and deep. While you can buy a six-core Mac Core for $ 1,099, this model only has 8 GB of RAM and 512 GB of storage. A Mac Mini with similar RAM and memory will bring you back $ 1,500.

If you want a small desktop, especially one that runs Windows, the NUC 10i7FNHAA – and the NUC models in general – remain a good choice. The most common brands in the U.S., such as Dell, HP, and Lenovo, offer small PCs. However, they are mainly designed for the business-to-business market, which leads to a high price for many models.

How long it will take?

You can't replace the NUC 10i7FNHAA's processor, but the Core i7-10710U is fast enough to stay relevant for at least a few years. The RAM and the hard disk can also be replaced without any problems. I think you will benefit from it for at least five years.

Intel grants a standard 3 year warranty. This is unusually good in the PC area, where a 1-year warranty is standard.

Should you buy one?

Yes, if you want a powerful desktop PC that fits almost anywhere. The Frost Canyon NUC fits into a niche like previous models. But if this niche is perfect.

Editor's recommendations