30 ms·
If a laptop isn't fast enough, a NUC wouldn't be either. The NUC is an ultrabook in a small desktop form factor - the "Core i7" branding you see means less than
by exelius 12y ago
If a laptop isn't fast enough, a NUC wouldn't be either. The NUC is an ultrabook in a small desktop form factor - the "Core i7" branding you see means less than the "U" at the end of the CPU part number (which means that the CPU is a low-power part).
If you need a portable powerhouse laptop, you need a 15" MacBook Pro. Mine is a quad-core with 16GB of RAM and it's by far the fastest laptop I've ever seen. It's not a great gaming machine simply because of the lack of games; though more and more games are seeing Mac ports than ever since 4 of the 5 major game development engines support Mac (and it's hard to justify support for SteamOS if you don't support Mac as well). It's not cheap; but between price, portability and power you can only pick two.
- lqdc13 12y agoThat's not true. It depends a lot on the OS and what you're doing. If you're using Ubuntu, the NUC would be faster for most tasks because the intel graphics card has nice drivers and the (integrated) graphics card is faster. So flash videos would run much better. Also, per core, the NUC is roughly just as fast. Maybe a little faster. Most of the time you are not using all cores. Here's the CPU comparison between this NUC and the fastest Macbook Pro CPU http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-5557U-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4980HQ http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-5557U-vs-Intel-Core-i7... Finally, both NUC and Macbook Pro are really bad with games. Macbook Pro heats up like crazy even when sitting on an aluminum cooler just watching Netflix. Playing games is another story. Very few are supported and even fewer are optimized for OSX. On the other hand, the NUC just doesn't have the discrete graphics card required. If you are OK with the form factor and aren't running multicore simulation most of the time, the NUC is a better choice.