Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
idata
Community Manager
1,801 Views

MXM support

this NUC platform is awesome, very practical for various tasks, it wouldn't hurt MXM support to expand is capability for gaming, i'm sure it doable

0 Kudos
10 Replies
AlHill
Super User
155 Views

Glad you like it, but to which/what NUC platform are you referring?

Doc

idata
Community Manager
155 Views

i have a 5CPY but as far as i know any of them support MXM GPUs yet, and i think it would be a great idea to include them into future designs

n_scott_pearson
Super User Retired Employee
155 Views

Sorry, but you will likely never see support for add-in graphics (a la MXM) in a NUC product - and especially not in low-end models like the NUC5CPY. Because of the complexities of managing thermals in UCFF environments, supporting add-in graphics solutions - whose thermal management represents a complete unknown at design time - is simply not possible.

The NUC designs will likely continue to exclusively support embedded graphics solutions - though note the following:

  1. Some NUC models utilize processor designs containing embedded AMD Radeon graphics solutions (see, for example, the NUC8i7HN, NUC8i7HV and NUC8i3CY models).
  2. eGFX solutions can also be used with most NUC models that support Thunderbolt 3.

Hope this helps,

...S

idata
Community Manager
155 Views

How can you made such and statement on something clearly beyond your power? also using an absurd excuse like thermal management when MXM has been proved to work on smaller environment like laptops for years and with much more inefficient GPUs, i'm sorry but i don't think your answer is helpful at all, i dont think i'm bothering anyone asking for a better solution and i do it because i believe in this platform

n_scott_pearson
Super User Retired Employee
155 Views

No, you misunderstand. In these laptops, the GFX solution, whether it uses the socket or not, is fixed and not replaceable. Because it is fixed, the thermal solution can be designed specifically for it. Supporting the socket - and allowing the GFX solution to be changed by the user (i.e. making it field-upgradeable) is close to impossible as the thermal solution would either have to be changeable or targeted to support the worst-case, which is way, way too expensive to contemplate.

As to the other part of this question, you are right, I am only stating my opinion. Before I retired, I spent 21 years at Intel and was part of the team designing the NUCs for a number of years, but I guess this doesn't matter to you. Well, let me ask you this: Why would Intel want to support an off-chip GFX solution when they have perfectly good ones in their chips (especially now they have the new processors with AMD Radeon RX Vega graphics built in)? Why would Intel want to raise the price of their NUC products by many tens, if not hundreds of dollars to support such a solution? This effort would, in fact, price them out of most of their markets. Let's face it, you don't purchase NUCs to do true, hard-core gaming; the requirements for this are far beyond what can be provided in a 4x4x2in or even a 9x6x2in formfactor (at least with the technologies that exist today). I see absolutely no chance of this succeeding - but, you never know...

...S

idata
Community Manager
155 Views

first, MXM has been tried and proven, and upgrading gpus on laptops has been done many times, that's a fact and it surprises me that you can doubt that, then again theres people who still think everything on a laptop is soldered. second, MXM would only make the platform more appealing, also intel does tackle gaming with NUCs so your whole statement is just absurd, im suggesting a nice idea period i can't comprehend why you feel the need to oppose it as it won't make any difference to you.

btw people like you get products to dead ends and ultimately cancelled with all that negativity, thank you for your efforts, i respect your knowledge but i'm glad you retired.

idata
Community Manager
155 Views

another thing, the one with amd vega is already 1k bare so i don't know how adding a couple of hundreds on the 400 quad core could hurt them rather than make them more appealing

MLevi
Valued Contributor I
155 Views

Rachuko,

I think your response is rude and arrogant. You are ignoring the basic design and engineering that goes into making a platform this size, and MXM is not included for a darn good reason.

If you don't know why, you should not be critical of the responses you are getting.

Your ignorance of engineering is evident, and you're not actually making a recommendation, but instead, you're being critical of the design and rude to people who know a lot about it.

I'm not attacking you or suggesting your opinion about MXM is wrong. You simply don't have a clue what you're talking about as far as how MXM won't work in the NUC platform.

idata
Community Manager
155 Views

youre right, im not clueless but i was rude, though it started when i was simply proposing an idea and got an opposed response quoting problems that i think i can refute, he said it was because price would go up, gaming wasn't the target or size was too small and all of those are wrong, maybe there's a problem i dont really know, but most of the time its because licensing or a patent and pushing for it may make intel think again.

n_scott_pearson
Super User Retired Employee
155 Views

Look, you obviously don't get it. Intel does not build a NUC specifically for gaming; they build NUCs that are versatile enough to be used in all sorts of usage models and sell in all sorts of markets. Adding a feature like this specifically to (possibly) provide support for higher-end gaming would, through the significant price increase it would entail, price the resulting NUC out of many of these other markets. Intel will not build a NUC specifically for gaming for a lot of reasons - and yes, there are some that I cannot talk about. Suffice it to say, the market for gaming is simply not big enough to offset the sales lost elsewhere and thus make the effort worthwhile.

I am not being negative here. I am being realistic and open about something that I know will never happen. Your idea is not new; it *has* been considered. You are taking this personally when you shouldn't be. You think I am wrong, that's your prerogative (I really don't care, one way or the other; I don't take things like this personally (rudely presented or not)). If I am proven wrong, you can come back here then and say so - and I will acknowledge it. In the meantime, (a) rest assured that this suggestion will still be delivered to the development team, but (b) don't get your hopes up that anything will come of it.

...S

Reply