Dayman1225
Golden Member
- Aug 14, 2017
- 1,152
- 974
- 146
That'll end up $110 in US dollars. It's a $10 increase from the J4205-ITX.
Yep, missed your following post. Was falling asleep and drugged up on cold meds, and angry these boards arent available yet after being announced almost 6 months ago. I ended up with an i3 kaby lake for a pfsense setup i would have otherwise tried to use this for and am pretty happy anyways.Did you miss the part where I linked FanlessTech saying it was 110 Euro? That article was basing it if the MSRP for the chips, which OEMs don't pay.
Strange, indeed. Kind of a "hard fail" too, since there's no DP either, to use an active adapter (like I do for my ASRock DeskMini units).Fanless Gemini Lake BRIX - FanlessTech
Odd of the omission of the HDMI 2.0 Port...
Yeah, Gemimi Lake uses Gen 10 display too, which IIRC supports 2.0 nativelyStrange, indeed. Kind of a "hard fail" too, since there's no DP either, to use an active adapter (like I do for my ASRock DeskMini units).
This is to be expected I'm afraid: emulation kills performance. And as expected SD835 is faster than N3450 for native apps.Thought y'all might enjoy this comparison:
ARM SD835 vs Celeron N3450 on Windows (Video)
ARM SD835 vs Celeron N3450 on Windows (Article)
Thought y'all might enjoy this comparison:
ARM SD835 vs Celeron N3450 on Windows (Video)
ARM SD835 vs Celeron N3450 on Windows (Article)
Hard to draw any real conclusions as to the actual single threaded performance difference between the N3450 and the SD835 when not using emulation. The SD835 performance cores run at 11 % higher frequency than the N3450 burst frequency. The Octane result is a tie and the PDF Viewer Plus is just 6 % faster on the SD835. Basemark Web 3.0 is ~50% faster on the SD835, but that benchmark consists of several GPU benchmarks (where the SD835 should have the advantage) and some may also take advantage of more than 4 threads (the SD835 has eight cores).Thought y'all might enjoy this comparison:
ARM SD835 vs Celeron N3450 on Windows (Video)
ARM SD835 vs Celeron N3450 on Windows (Article)
Thought y'all might enjoy this comparison:
ARM SD835 vs Celeron N3450 on Windows (Video)
ARM SD835 vs Celeron N3450 on Windows (Article)
Real world user experience should compare ARM emulated X32 to Intel X64 because that is what the consumer has an actual choice between. Intel still wins, but by more.
Strangely, the delivery dates for NUCs with Gemini Lake continue to slip. The dates I'm getting now are April 5th, which means they're about to slip out of the Q1 launch window. I guess you could technically call them launched, though.
Ashraf said:
This is simply not true. Most of the time IA32 code is faster than x86-64 due to less memory footprint and hence less cache thrashing. Memory support of course is the main reason why apps move to 64-bit.Substantially all new Intel deployments runs X64 rather than X32 because it is inherently faster and supports more memory which sometimes makes it even faster..
Are you completely sure about that? For example, testing by Phoronix (on Ubuntu) seems to contradict that statement:This is simply not true. Most of the time IA32 code is faster than x86-64 due to less memory footprint and hence less cache thrashing. Memory support of course is the main reason why apps move to 64-bit.
Many of their tests are using SIMD where 64-bit can make a vast difference. And honestly Phoronix is not the best place to look at benchmark results...Are you completely sure about that? For example, testing by Phoronix (on Ubuntu) seems to contradict that statement:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu-1710-x8664&num=1
Thanks. Good to know. It would still be interesting to see a modern, more comprehensive test done on the subject.Many of their tests are using SIMD where 64-bit can make a vast difference. And honestly Phoronix is not the best place to look at benchmark results...
I just gave a quick try of SPEC 2000 176.gcc with gcc 7.2.0 -O3 -march=native. 32-bit is ~10% faster than 64-bit on both a Xeon X5670 (Westmere) and a Xeon E5-2650 v2 (Sandy Bridge).
Thanks for the link! Pretty disappointing benchmark selection (although single threaded performance looks nice, as we already knew). Also disappointing that memory support might be spotty, just like on Apollo Lake. The 2400 MHz HyperX memory is exactly what I have lined up for my NUC7PJYH when it arrives. Looks like I may have to return that...
Yep, that's my understanding as well. It's a shame, since if your memory won't run at rated spec, you can't simply dial things down like you normally can.An observation: BIOS of NUCs with processors based on low-cost architecture does not have a visible "Performance" tab. This means no adjustment of memory like such: https://images.anandtech.com/galleries/6270/IMG_20180328_204536.jpg , unless the function is hidden by requiring a search.
I don’t know what’s up with the memory controller on Apollo Lake and Gemini Lake, but between the spotty memory support, low bandwidth efficiency and slow memory access, something about the design seems to be quite different compared to the Core based chips.
Hmm not bad. But apparently there's a J4105 that's quad-core with the same TDP and price point. When will we see that in a NUC? In any case, the value is hurt badly by RAM prices right now. 8GB of DDR4 is $90 now, 3/4 the cost of that NUC on newegg!
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking as well. However, I still find it surprising that a Core 2 Duo without an integrated memory controller can produce some 30-40 % lower memory latency than this thing.The spotty support is a disappointment, I will acknowledge that.
However, the rest is fairly logical because its a smaller core processor with much less out of order execution resources and a memory subsystem designed for efficiency over pure performance. You will never see a lower class processor perform equal on memory performance compared to a higher performing one. Architects surely realize this and putting a memory controller that's too powerful is like putting a McLaren engine on a Miata. Both are considered sports cars, but aimed at totally different sectors.
4 Goldmont cores with the System Agent equivalent block can fit in a space that's roughly equal to the area of a single Skylake-class core. The chip is very respectable considering that.