[User 102910]

.

[docwra]

Good review of the new NUC's here

http://nucblog.net/2017/02/kaby-lake-nuc...-overview/

[movie78]

Hello,

does *.mkv 3D MVC playback work only under Windows with special Kodi-Build or will it also work under Linux with the new Kaby Lake NUCs?

Only Windows

[docwra]

I started a specific 7th generation Intel NUC thread here

http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=306556

As these machines are available for sale now in most places.

From the reviews it only seems about 5% faster in day to day use though.

[movie78]

OK, ASRock BEEBOX-S 7100U or Intel NUC BOXNUC7I3BNH?

Same CPU, same memory and storage support, comparable LAN, WIFI and audio. On paper, the ASRock has the following advantages (no particular order):
- IR receiver and remote
- second HDMI port, as well as DP
- USB 3.1 (Type C)
(anything else?)

The only NUC advantage I could find (again - on paper) is:
- Bluetooth v4.2 (vs 4.0 on the ASRock)
(anything else?)

The price is practically the same, also they are both in stock at this moment. So which one should I buy? Being an Intel fan, I want to like the NUC, but is it really worth it? Will it be realistic to expect things like higher quality components, better durability and support from it?

I guess another way to look at this is to ask "which one is more future-proof". Being they both support same storage, RAM and CPU and none of the other components are really upgrade-able, it comes down to comparing the included individual components/features:

1. The one component I care a lot is the DP-to-HDMI converter chip, which apparently both boxes use to get HDMI 2.0. I guess the focus will fall on it. Do we know exact model(s) of the chip(s) used in the two boxes? Is it the same or different and if the latter, how do they compare in terms of supported resolutions, protocols, video formats, data rates, etc. For example, if it is determined that the chips are indeed different and let's say the one used in the NUC supports a particular feature that the one in the ASRock does not, then this would definitely tip the scales toward the NUC despite ASRock's hardware advantages.

2. The other item I care a lot is the picture quality of the HDMI output. And let's ignore for now the fact that ASRock has additional HDMI 1.4 as well as DP ports, let's focus just on the common HDMI 2.0 (4K 60Hz) ports. Should I expect better or worse PQ from either of the boxes? Is it actually box dependent, or does it depend on the CPU/GPU (which is the same)? Or on the above mentioned conversion chip, which may or may not be the same?

3. Driver support - even if both boxes use the same components, the drivers may make a lot of difference. Being that particularly the GPU drivers come directly from Intel, will the NUC have an advantage here?

4. BIOS features - here I expect the most differences between the two platform. For example support for legacy BIOS OS, overclocking, etc.

5. Cooling and noise - both important. Is the NUC better with maybe higher quality fan, heatsink, design, metal case? Or did ASRock got it better?

6. Kodi support - I leave this for the last, because I assume there will be no differences/issues here. Please correct me if I'm wrong because this ultimately might be the most important consideration

I have the ASRock BEEBOX-S 7100U for the dual HDMI.

[Shodan13]

OK, ASRock BEEBOX-S 7100U or Intel NUC BOXNUC7I3BNH?

Same CPU, same memory and storage support, comparable LAN, WIFI and audio. On paper, the ASRock has the following advantages (no particular order):
- IR receiver and remote
- second HDMI port, as well as DP
- USB 3.1 (Type C)
(anything else?)

The only NUC advantage I could find (again - on paper) is:
- Bluetooth v4.2 (vs 4.0 on the ASRock)
(anything else?)

The price is practically the same, also they are both in stock at this moment. So which one should I buy? Being an Intel fan, I want to like the NUC, but is it really worth it? Will it be realistic to expect things like higher quality components, better durability and support from it?

I guess another way to look at this is to ask "which one is more future-proof". Being they both support same storage, RAM and CPU and none of the other components are really upgrade-able, it comes down to comparing the included individual components/features:

1. The one component I care a lot is the DP-to-HDMI converter chip, which apparently both boxes use to get HDMI 2.0. I guess the focus will fall on it. Do we know exact model(s) of the chip(s) used in the two boxes? Is it the same or different and if the latter, how do they compare in terms of supported resolutions, protocols, video formats, data rates, etc. For example, if it is determined that the chips are indeed different and let's say the one used in the NUC supports a particular feature that the one in the ASRock does not, then this would definitely tip the scales toward the NUC despite ASRock's hardware advantages.

2. The other item I care a lot is the picture quality of the HDMI output. And let's ignore for now the fact that ASRock has additional HDMI 1.4 as well as DP ports, let's focus just on the common HDMI 2.0 (4K 60Hz) ports. Should I expect better or worse PQ from either of the boxes? Is it actually box dependent, or does it depend on the CPU/GPU (which is the same)? Or on the above mentioned conversion chip, which may or may not be the same?

3. Driver support - even if both boxes use the same components, the drivers may make a lot of difference. Being that particularly the GPU drivers come directly from Intel, will the NUC have an advantage here?

4. BIOS features - here I expect the most differences between the two platform. For example support for legacy BIOS OS, overclocking, etc.

5. Cooling and noise - both important. Is the NUC better with maybe higher quality fan, heatsink, design, metal case? Or did ASRock got it better?

6. Kodi support - I leave this for the last, because I assume there will be no differences/issues here. Please correct me if I'm wrong because this ultimately might be the most important consideration

I was considering the Beebox as well, but going by the Anandtech review it seems that the build quality is not really up to scruff, especially for the thermals.

[movie78]

The only issue I have with mine is Kodi is using about 80% of the memory, I need to find out what is going on with it, if you are not going to play 3D MVC in Windows Kodi then the Intel NUC will be better option.

[stfn]

The only issue I have with mine is Kodi is using about 80% of the memory, I need to find out what is going on with it, if you are not going to play 3D MVC in Windows Kodi then the Intel NUC will be better option.

Can you please explain more? Indeed I'm not planning to play 3D at all (personal preference, also my TV doesn't support it). Why would this fact make the NUC a better choice?

[movie78]

The only issue I have with mine is Kodi is using about 80% of the memory, I need to find out what is going on with it, if you are not going to play 3D MVC in Windows Kodi then the Intel NUC will be better option.

Can you please explain more? Indeed I'm not planning to play 3D at all (personal preference, also my TV doesn't support it). Why would this fact make the NUC a better choice?

I don't have the Intel NUC Kaby lake so I can't do a side by side testing to know which is actually better, if it wasn't for 3D I would have purchased the NUC just because it's made by Intel and has higher selling return value.

To be honest both these hardware's are using almost the same HW components and drivers.

[the_jaguar]

I wonder if the Kaby Lake NUC's are capable of handling madVR. I know that madVR is mainly dependent on the video card, so I am wondering if the Intel 620 integrated card is capable of handling it. If not, are there any other Kaby Lake NUC's that are capable of doing it? I guess something with a Nvidia card?

[Shodan13]

I wonder if the Kaby Lake NUC's are capable of handling madVR. I know that madVR is mainly dependent on the video card, so I am wondering if the Intel 620 integrated card is capable of handling it. If not, are there any other Kaby Lake NUC's that are capable of doing it? I guess something with a Nvidia card?

The Anandtech review I posted earlier says no.

[ichkriegediekri]

Hi

Simple question :-)

What to get:

KL Baby Canyon NUC7i7BNH

or

SL Skull Canyon

Usage:

Kodi on Ubuntu base for up to 4k 60hz incl. HEVC

thx

[TheShoe]

I wonder if the Kaby Lake NUC's are capable of handling madVR. I know that madVR is mainly dependent on the video card, so I am wondering if the Intel 620 integrated card is capable of handling it. If not, are there any other Kaby Lake NUC's that are capable of doing it? I guess something with a Nvidia card?

madVR + Lav on Intel GPUs work, except for 3D MVC. At least on my 5100. I know these NUCs have an updated GPU.

On nVidia it works great and looks excellent

[movie78]

I wonder if the Kaby Lake NUC's are capable of handling madVR. I know that madVR is mainly dependent on the video card, so I am wondering if the Intel 620 integrated card is capable of handling it. If not, are there any other Kaby Lake NUC's that are capable of doing it? I guess something with a Nvidia card?

madVR + Lav on Intel GPUs work, except for 3D MVC. At least on my 5100. I know these NUCs have an updated GPU.

On nVidia it works great and looks excellent

I was trying to setup MadVR got Mad so I stop

[the_jaguar]

I wonder if the Kaby Lake NUC's are capable of handling madVR. I know that madVR is mainly dependent on the video card, so I am wondering if the Intel 620 integrated card is capable of handling it. If not, are there any other Kaby Lake NUC's that are capable of doing it? I guess something with a Nvidia card?

madVR + Lav on Intel GPUs work, except for 3D MVC. At least on my 5100. I know these NUCs have an updated GPU.

On nVidia it works great and looks excellent

Interesting. I really care for 3D MVC, so it's a non-starter for me if it doesn't work. Let's hope the updated GPU enables 3D MVC