So, I just ordered an NUC8i7HVK, and would like a second power brick to save lugging it around all the time (home<-->office)...
No love at https://click.intel.com/intel-nuc.html Intel® NUC Spare Parts yet :-(
From review pics I see the NUC comes with a Lite-On brand power supply, model "PA-1231-12".
The https://www.intel.com/content/dam/support/us/en/documents/mini-pcs/nuc-kits/NUC8i7HVK_TechProdSpec.pdf Technical Product Specification states that's a 19.5v/11.8A (230w) power supply with a DC "barrel" style plug having 7.4mm/OD 5.0mm/ID shell (ground) and inner 0.8mm (19.5v) contact.
So, the question then becomes, where to get one?
I can't find anyone selling identical Lite-On power supplies directly online?
There seem to be a variety of laptops using similar power supplies. It's worth noting that Lenovo uses a "PA-1231-12LA" (note the additional "LA" on the end) model with an incompatible square plug.
Interestingly, the tech spec also states:
The kit has a power sensing circuit that Manages CPU power usage to maintain system power consumption below 230 W. It is recommended that you disable this feature (via BIOS option) when using an AC-DC adapter greater than 230 W.
Which makes me wonder if trying to find one of the 280w power supplies MSI specs for their gaming laptops might yield a performance increase (at least for a burst until you hit the TDP wall)?
Anyhow, searching Amazon yields an https://www.amazon.com/Power-535592-001-609946-001-613159-001-693706-001/dp/B01MRDBP6E/ HP branded one ("HSTNN-LA12"), and one from https://www.amazon.com/19-5V-11-8A-Replacement-G752VS-XS74K-G752VS-XB72K/dp/B07CXJCHRT/ Delippo, so I'm wondering if I should give one of those a shot? I just want something reliable that won't fry my NUC, but the marketplace for these things sure is sketchy :-(
- Intel® NUC 8th Gen
I've found that you can use just about any DC Power Supply for any DC power equipment provided that the tip is right, the input AC voltage is correct for your region and the power brinks deliver the correct DC voltage and Minimum Amps rated (19.5v/11.8A).
The Bios based 230 watt setting is exactly what you turn off if you find a power supply that has the right voltage but more than 11.8A because the delivered wattage is > 230.
You can run these NUCs on a 19.5v/20A power brick @390W (and turn off the wattage bios setting).
Using an underrated Power Brick, is never recommend.
Well, I ended up purchasing a couple 330w http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dfo&sku=332-1432&mfgpid=234875 Dell "5X3NX" power supplies (directly from Dell Canada, at great expense, to avoid the potentially counterfeit junk on Amazon).
I figured I need two, since if I want to disable the BIOS power sensing limit, everywhere I plug it in better be able to supply more juice, so I then shouldn't use the stock power supply anymore. Seems kinda cheap to artificially limit current draw rather than shipping it with a more capable brick.
I visited the Dell Link you provided, and I can't see where they describe the DC Output Voltage or output Amps.
Overall wattage is > 230W, but if the power supply isn't rated for 19.5VDC output, you will have, at a minimum problems with your NUC working properly.
There are three basic scenarios when purchasing DC Power bricks that are not an exact match for the OEM version.
The following will cause damage to your device:
Higher voltage adapter than device rating
The following will cause harm to your power cord or adapter:
Lower current adapter than device rating
The following might not cause damage, but the device will not work properly:
Lower voltage adapter than device rating
If the adapter has the correct voltage, but the current is greater than what the device input requires, then you shouldn't see any problems. For example, if your device needs a 19V / 5A DC input, but you use a 19V / 8A DC adapter, your device will still get the 19V voltage it requires, but it will only draw 5A of current. As far as current goes, the device calls the shots, and the adapter will have to do less work.
Checked BIOS this morning to see if Power Sense was set.
This is the BIOS setting that needs to be off, if using a more capable power supply than the 230W brick shipped with the unit.
I assumed it was anything providing 19.5VDC and *more than* 230W.
[edited] Reading the exact section of the technical specification actually identifies my assumption was wrong.
When enabled, the power sense will monitor the input power from the power supply and will assert PROCHOT# (Processor Hot) to the CPU if the power [draw] is high enough that it risks causing the power adaptor to shut down.
the "[draw]" in the quoted section above, is for clarity.
System shipped with Power Sense off and I have the standard brick, and makes sense given the tech spec.
My conclusion is exactly the opposite. No, it doesn't make sense. If you have the standard power brick, you want this circuit enabled to protect against overdraw causing an abrupt system shutdown and, potentially, a permanent failure of the power brick. Only if you have a more-capable power brick should you consider not enabling this circuit.
Isn't it funny how the contrary thoughts will always pop into your head literally a split second after you press the "Add Reply" button? Curses Red Baron!
Anyway, my contrary thought is this: What constitutes a fully-loaded system? Well, it has to be one that is consuming the maximum power possible across all connectors. Now, I do not have any information on the power budget of the overall design, but I do know that you are not going to have devices connected to every USB port that are drawing the maximum current (you do have at least one and possibly two in use for keyboard and mouse). Bottom line, I would think that the draw is going to be well below the full 230W. Bottom line, the protection circuit is likely not necessary -- but what advantage does disabling it have? Having it enabled protects you against an extreme case and, in normal times, is completely benign -- because no, disabling it won't result in a potentially faster system as the maximum budget of the processor and graphics solutions is [well, supposed to be ] fixed.
Yeah, I really wonder how much the CPU/GPU can potentially draw for turbo/burst style operations when operating below TDP? ie, does this option have any practical impact if you aren't also charging via the USB port, etc?
If I feel ambitious maybe I will try doing some benchmarks. My hunch is you're right, and the option will have no measurable impact on performance.
Here's a nearly all USB occupied NUC8i7HVK. Only 2 x USB ports unoccupied.
Although I think the arrows are wrong for the Mini Display ports ... if it says "to" it is implying output, based on the other "to's".
10 Monitors driven by a NUC8i7HVK and an external GPU
This is one of the key reasons I don't follow the Power distribution we have been discussing.
https://unlocked.newegg.com/article/intel-hades-canyon-nuc-unlocked-ten-displays-once Intel Hades Canyon NUC Unlocked: Ten Displays at Once | Unlocked
I'm not sure what multiple display devices has to do with power requirements, as most displays will supply their own power (though I do have a 13" GeChick USB powered one). USB devices can be bus powered, in which case they will draw from the NUC, or they can be self-powered, such as a USB hub with it's own brick, in which case it will also not draw from the NUC. If you're trying to stress the NUC power, you need to plug in devices which aren't self powered, like a bunch of battery powered devices which want to charge via USB and also support quick charging, as most USB devices probably don't inherently draw all that much power for operation.
I noted during installation that one of the drivers is called "usb_c_power_delivery_win10..." Has anyone tried to power a USB Power Delivery based device like a Macbook by plugging it into the usb-c (or charging) port on the NUC? That would be interesting.
I didn't add enough words and important qualifiers in my last post that you responded to.
The unresolved "itch" that I'm referring to is why Intel chose to design the two TB3 ports sourced from the Platform Controller Hub PCIe lane via the Alpine Ridge DP, and not directly from the CPU, like the front panel USB 3.1 gen2 ports.
Does this impact the power delivery at all to the TB3 ports for system charging and bus power?
The Thunderbolt Specification
Power (based on USB power delivery)
- Up to 100W system charging
- 15W to bus-powered devices
Is the complete specification for system charging and bus-power devices is available on both TB3 ports simultaneously?
What trade-offs in the power design did Intel make, if any.
Completely unrelated .... A few years back I tested a 24-Port USB System Charging AND Data Hub, that did not come with an adequately spec'd brick (14W) to support all of those ports. (note: 20 ports are USB 2 (500mA each) spec and 4 were USB 3 (900mA each))
I had 24 x 2GB USB flash drives to test the data throughput. I had primed each flash drive with the exact same 500 MB file folder. After the 5th flash drive I started getting read errors and from the 6th onward, the hub would not recognize any more drives. I moved 5 around all the ports and regardless, could not get past the 5th flash drive.
I then went on to test system charging devices and was only able to use two of the USB 2 ports successfully (iPad & iPhone 5s charging). The 4 x USB 3 ports were able to support 4-System Charging devices, but not entirely. The 4th kept powering on-and-off and I couldn't get dependable handshaking.
I also tested the two bus-powered devices (USB 3 audio interfaces) and only one would power up successfully using the USB 3 ports on the hub and the OEM PSU.
I turned to my hobbyist 300W cage power supply and I wired up a barrel tip. I was able to successfully test data and system charging - 20 x 2GB flash drives and four system charging devices (all Apples) simultaneously.
I could not get the bus-powered devices to power up until removing everything and using the USB 3 ports exclusively. (the devices were all USB 2).
Yea Mike I have run into that one as well. Why ship the hub with a power adapter that is inadequate to support the output offered by all supported ports? Do they assume that no one will ever need this? Do they assume no one reads the spec before they purchase? Oddly enough, in the cases I was looking at, no one reported this as an issue in their reviews...
Anyway, I cannot ask the developers for answers to your questions as this is part of their design IP (well, actually, I do have the NDAs to hear the answer, but I wouldn't be able to pass the information along if I did). What I did do, however, was ask for their opinions regarding whether the Alpine Ridge DP IC could fully support both USB-C ports simultaneously if support for full USB Power Delivery was to be provided.