Intel is refreshing its line of NUC mini-computers. The new Intel NUC Kit D54250WYK features an Intel Core i5 Haswell processor with Intel HD 5000 graphics, DisplayPort 1.2, and support for ultra HD displays.
There’s no word on how much the new model will cost or when it will hit the streets, but similar models with Ivy Bridge chips tend to sell for around $400 (for a barebones system without a hard drive, memory, or operating system).
The NUC D54250WYK sports an Intel Core i5-4250U processor, 2 SODIMM slots for up to 16GB of memory, 4 USB 3.0 ports, 2 USB 2.0 ports, an SATA port, mini DisplayPort, mini HDMI port, Gigabit Ethernet, and 7.1 channel audio.
Under the hood there’s a mini PCI Express slot with mSATA support and a half-height mini PCIe slot.
The Core i5 chip that powers the new model is a 1.3 GHz dual-core processor with turbo boost support for speeds up to 2.6 GHz. It’s a 22nm chip with a TDP of 15W. Basically, it’s a chip designed for laptops, which’ll help keep the system from overheating. There’s not a lot of room inside the case: an NUC computer measures about 4.6″ x 4.4″ x 1.4″.
If those specs aren’t doing it for you, Gigabyte also recently updated its Brix line of NUC-like mini-desktops with Haswell processors.
Glad it has SATA port on the board now, reasonable size mSATA is too much $$$ still.
This is a nice option, but I could sacrifice a Haswell chip (since I don’t have to worry about battery life) for a lower price tag. It wouldn’t be my main computing device, but it’s mainly a way to replace my aging 10-year-old Dell desktop with Windows XP.
I guess the old Ivy Bridge or the new Bay Trail NUCs would get/be cheaper.
probably. That would save some cash for a Windows 7 license
Fanless and sealed? If not, can just the board be purchased so I can use a different sealed and fanless case?
Also, does Intel provide drivers for Windows 7? I have lab software that hasn’t been officially ported to Windows 8. It’s a low priority for the vendor and updates to the Windows 7 version is higher priority. I never had good success with Windows’ backwards compatibility. Issues eventually happens.
4K video is the biggest ho-hummer since 3D TVs. Intel would be better off sticking with 1080p and reducing the NUCs’ price accordingly.
Maybe in the mainstream, but 1080p is also fairly crummy compared to 2560×1440. Whatever happens, we must not be allowed to stay where we are, or 1080p will be the next 1024×768. Too widely used to stop supporting, but too horrible a resolution to actually use. Case in point, this, and every other fixed width website is 1024 pixels across.
*edit* A few hours after I write this the site gets updated to apparently adjust to width. This is excellent and also ruins my point 😛
We are talking about a computer here, and a 4K monitor can hold a lot of information.
There are some cheap 4K TVs that seem to work just fine as a computer monitor, as long as you are not gaming (which this little box could not support very well anyway).
Now, if you are confining use to being purely for TV, that is another story.
Comments are closed.