3 ms·

Agreed. Sadly Intel didn't make the NUC a standard. There are decent SFF around, but sadly they all use 128 bit memory interfaces which is severely limiting f

by sliken 4y ago

Agreed. Sadly Intel didn't make the NUC a standard. There are decent SFF around, but sadly they all use 128 bit memory interfaces which is severely limiting for an iGPU. Sadly Apple can build low power small systems with 2x, 4x, and 8x the memory bandwidth, but nobody else seems interested.

midoridensha 4y ago
>Sadly Intel didn't make the NUC a standard. They didn't? Admittedly I don't know that much about it, but the Wikipedia page is very thorough. I don't remember IBM making the PC-AT a standard either; it became a de-facto standard because everyone just copied it, and the ISA bus was open. I don't see what's stopping anyone else from copying Intel's NUC form factor. The difference between the 80s/90s and now is that there isn't a single 800lb gorilla for everyone to copy, and for some reason other companies just don't care to take the stuff Intel has done and copy that. According to the Wikipedia article, Gigabyte made their own version of NUC that was similar but not the same, so of course parts aren't going to be compatible; when companies are doing this instead of just copying a single big competitor, then there's no de-facto standard, just a bunch of competing and incompatible standards.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > > Sadly Intel didn’t make the NUC a standard. > They didn’t? Correct, they did not. They did with ATX and BTX (but BTX was dropped before it caught on broadly, in a focus shift.) > I don’t remember IBM making the PC-AT a standard either Yeah, but you are the one who brought IBM up, so what? > It became a de-facto standard because everyone just copied it, Yeah, its not the 1980s, and there isn’t one manufacturer that is both as dominant as IBM and as unconcerned with protecting itself from cloning as as IBM was until the PS/2. > The difference between the 80s/90s and now is that there isn’t a single 800lb gorilla for everyone to copy, and for some reason other companies just don’t care to take the stuff Intel has done and copy that. There wasn’t an 800lb gorilla to copy in the 1990s, either, because IBM went proprietary with the PS/2. The =difference between the 1990s/2000s and today is that Intel (or someone else similarly situated; Nvidia could plausibly do it) isn’t actively promoting form factor standards, the way it did with ATX (from 1995) and BTX (from 2004, but stopped being actively promoted in a few years because Intel temporarily shifted business focus to low power designs, and BTX was centered around improved airflow for high power applications.)
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Ok, but again I don't see what's keeping anyone else from simply copying Intel's NUC standard and making it a de-facto standard. Why would Intel even have a problem with this? Their goal is to sell chips ultimately.

by sliken 4y ago

midoridensha 4y ago

>Sadly Intel didn't make the NUC a standard. They didn't? Admittedly I don't know that much about it, but the Wikipedia page is very thorough. I don't remember IBM making the PC-AT a standard either; it became a de-facto standard because everyone just copied it, and the ISA bus was open. I don't see what's stopping anyone else from copying Intel's NUC form factor. The difference between the 80s/90s and now is that there isn't a single 800lb gorilla for everyone to copy, and for some reason other companies just don't care to take the stuff Intel has done and copy that. According to the Wikipedia article, Gigabyte made their own version of NUC that was similar but not the same, so of course parts aren't going to be compatible; when companies are doing this instead of just copying a single big competitor, then there's no de-facto standard, just a bunch of competing and incompatible standards.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> > Sadly Intel didn’t make the NUC a standard. > They didn’t? Correct, they did not. They did with ATX and BTX (but BTX was dropped before it caught on broadly, in a focus shift.) > I don’t remember IBM making the PC-AT a standard either Yeah, but you are the one who brought IBM up, so what? > It became a de-facto standard because everyone just copied it, Yeah, its not the 1980s, and there isn’t one manufacturer that is both as dominant as IBM and as unconcerned with protecting itself from cloning as as IBM was until the PS/2. > The difference between the 80s/90s and now is that there isn’t a single 800lb gorilla for everyone to copy, and for some reason other companies just don’t care to take the stuff Intel has done and copy that. There wasn’t an 800lb gorilla to copy in the 1990s, either, because IBM went proprietary with the PS/2. The =difference between the 1990s/2000s and today is that Intel (or someone else similarly situated; Nvidia could plausibly do it) isn’t actively promoting form factor standards, the way it did with ATX (from 1995) and BTX (from 2004, but stopped being actively promoted in a few years because Intel temporarily shifted business focus to low power designs, and BTX was centered around improved airflow for high power applications.)
- midoridensha 4y ago
  Ok, but again I don't see what's keeping anyone else from simply copying Intel's NUC standard and making it a de-facto standard. Why would Intel even have a problem with this? Their goal is to sell chips ultimately.