- Aug 14, 2017
Cant wait to see it being tested out. But I was rather hoping it will be under $100, Given Ryzen 3 2200G + MB is $140.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.
This is to be expected I'm afraid: emulation kills performance. And as expected SD835 is faster than N3450 for native apps.
One thing that isn't mentioned is how the battery life advantage is gained by using expensive components and a big battery.
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).
I understand the position that the comparison is unbiased, but that is silly. 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. 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.
And the article points out compatibility issues with the translation layer active.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.
Rest of CFL and its 14nm Chipsets are taking its damn sweet time too (I know they are coming very soon, but still) this along with the fact that Intel has/is moving most of their portfolio to 14nm and there is more to move in the future - do you think its possible that Intel is having capacity issues?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.
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:
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.
The spotty support is a disappointment, I will acknowledge that.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!
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|T||Question Intel 14nm and 5 Ghz||CPUs and Overclocking||4|
|H||Question Intel 1Q21 Earnings||CPUs and Overclocking||29|
|Discussion Intel Core i7-11370H is it power hungry?||CPUs and Overclocking||14|
|K||Discussion Intel - the cost of BACKPORTING||CPUs and Overclocking||135|
|Question Intel Atom GPU limiting||CPUs and Overclocking||0|