Intel NUC P14E Laptop Element with Swappable NUC 11 Compute Element (2021)
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
The keyboard/chassis eventually wear out. Ports/busses/memory get changed and updated requiring a full refresh anyway. CPUs don't improve that dramatically, the years of doubling performance every 18 months are long gone. 3 years time is likely to result in what, a 30% performance enhancement? If that? That's nice, but not really worth an upgrade cycle. Especially if those enhancements come at a cost of a bigger die/higher price.
Historically, AMD beats Intel into the dust on this issue
edit - even this article reminds us that this product appears to replace Intel's 'Compute Card', which itself apparently superseded Intel's 'Compute Stick'. Betting on this product for more than a year or two ahead looks about as hopeful as betting on Google's latest API
I'm afraid of this becoming a subscription service for hardware. Buy our chassis, now buy all the things that used to come with your laptop, and don't worry, when you feel your underpowered chipset lagging, you can pay the price of a new laptop to upgrade a single part.
But hey, that part is technically reusable so that's sustainable, right?
Seems to be the goal of cloud everything as a service.
Also whos to say someone won't hack this to use non nuc modules? I'm sure the firmware is locked down but who knows. It would likely be more feasible to hack a new module into it over hoping framework makes new motherboards with the specs you want.
I also say this owning a Threadripper and two Ryzen systems, so I mean for mobile, not HEDT.
Intel should at least make prototype 'upgrades' from previous generarions to show it's feasible. Or at least from a current core series and a current atom series.
Apart from that, the only things somewhat better on the HP are USB-C charging (allows me to use other people's chargers – I work in PC-land) and HDMI 2.0 port. I barely use the last one, and for all my needs the mac's DP connectors were enough (could run 4k@60Hz). Bonus points for those being thunderbolt, so they run at full speed with a screen attached.
The mac's screen, touchpad, keyboard, speakers, wifi (!), lack of case creaking while on a flat surface are all simply superior. And this is a 9 yo computer that I've lugged around daily for some 7-8 years and would only go to sleep while in my bag.
+ Cost (cheaper to upgrade)
+ Environmental impact (less being thrown into landfills)
+ They might already like the chassis (I really miss the keyboard layout and touchpad from my old laptop)
Given laptops are supposed to be portable PCs (MacBooks aside) and PCs were always upgradable, it's a great pity we've stepped backwards into something a lot less customisable.
1. Old laptops are suitable for light use.
2. You are fine using an old laptop.
Neither of those suggests you are actually likely to spend money on a CPU upgrade.
The history of upgradable consumer computers bears this out.
Intel has Tik'd and Toc'd several times in the 14 years since 2008.
Basically, an upgrade board would need to be an entire computer...RAM has marched on too. So has USB.
It doesn't make sense to keep that SKU in stock for a market segment that doesn't upgrade their compute.
That means you can upgrade your CPU and still see upgrades in USB, RAM and so on and so forth, like you wanted, too.
I'm not exactly a member of the Intel fan club but I've got to admit that the NUC is a pretty awesome bit of kit. Crudely speaking, it's halfway between a Raspberry Pi and a desktop PC. So I think it's really well suited for the kind of purpose described in the article. I've got a NUC from around a decade ago to use as a HTPC and it's still going strong even now.
But even more to the point, your ten year old NUC is good enough. If you were the sort of person who upgraded, you would have upgraded.
While a C64 isn't good enough for most people today, a ten year old laptop is right up until it breaks.
> On a laptop from 2008, you won't have USB 3.0, 5ghz wifi, support for 16GB DIMM's (and maybe not even 8GB).
As I said, NUCs include all the stuff you've described. So upgrading the NUC in your laptop absolutely would upgrade USB et al. A NUC is a small form factor motherboard with an Intel CPU integrated. Just like upgrading your motherboard in a PC would upgrade USB et al, upgrading the NUC board would too. So your comment here doesn't apply to the product we're specifically talking about.
> But even more to the point, your ten year old NUC is good enough. If you were the sort of person who upgraded, you would have upgraded.
I said I use it as a HTPC. A HTPC is, by definition, not as a primary computing device. It's literally just a set top box.
If my last laptop was upgradable by swapping the board with a new one (in the same way as the laptop being advertised here is) then I absolutely would have done that instead of buying a new one. I loved that laptop -- still do. But it just aged too far for me to use it as my daily development machine.
> While a C64 isn't good enough for most people today, a ten year old laptop is right up until it breaks.
I don't even understand your point here. You're comparing apples to oranges and don't even make a point out of it.
For what it's worth, I do still have a bunch of 80s (and 70s too) 8-bit micros and still use them regularly. Sometimes for retro gaming, sometimes to teach my kids programming. Sometimes I just power them on for no particular reason aside nostalgia. It's sad how those machines are still working flawlessly yet modern systems 1/10th of the age are routinely breaking. Just goes to show how complex things have gotten and how disposable we consider our hardware these days. Just as your comments on this topic also do.
For me, it is the battery or motherboard+thermal solution which seem consumable and prone to failure. If these were modular and could always be replaced with contemporary upgrades, I could easily see myself using the same screen and chassis for decades. The basic 14 inch ultrabook format is close to its asymptotic ideal, I suspect. This could even justify having a little more invested in the chassis to make it even more robust, such as some more exotic titanium alloy or whatever.
But, for me the supported service life would really need to be decades with compatible modular parts. I would not want to be stuck looking at obsolete replacement parts from somebody's dusty warehouse when I have the need or impulse to refresh the machine. I'd want the replacement module to have options with the now current CPUs, GPUs, RAM type, networking, storage, and other IO ports. I would not want to be operating a time capsule of obsolete components.
Hence you are not a customer.
Nor part of a logically viable market segment.
Even if catering to single purchase buyers made sense.
Which it doesn’t for Nuc’s because they are not consumer products.
Not sure any of that insight will stick.
But always hopeful.
Yet.
> Hence you are not a customer.
Except I do buy laptops. So I am a potential customer. I also buy NUCs. Which also makes me a potential customer.
> Nor part of a logically viable market segment.
Incorrect. See answer above.
> Even if catering to single purchase buyers made sense.
You're now making assumptions about my background. I've made corporate purchasing decisions before and there's every chance I might take up that role again in the near future. There have been a few businesses buy into NUCs on a broader scale and I know for a fact that one of those businesses did so after my recommendation. So Intel have already made a pretty penny from me and I'm sure I'm not an isolated case either.
> Which it doesn’t for Nuc’s because they are not consumer products.
It's NUC (all case because it is an acronym of "Next Unit of Computing" -- I know it's dumb name but I didn't come up with it) and yes they are consumer products. More so than Raspberry Pis.
Just because you weren't aware of it doesn't mean it's not a consumer product. As it happens the NUC I own was bought from a consumer store.
> Not sure any of that insight will stick. But always hopeful.
There is absolutely no need for you to be rude all the time. Particularly when you're the one pulling strawman / misunderstanding peoples comments (hard to tell if you're intentionally missing the point or just not bothering to read other peoples comments properly).
Also given you've not heard of the NUC before now and didn't even know what it was before stubbornly taking your stance, you're not really in a strong position to be lecturing other people about what the NUC is or is not.
It's modular. No USB 3.0, true, but WiFi should be doable by replacing that card, and at least mine has 8GB of RAM (which, granted, is more than the manufacturer specifically supports and is actually the maximum that machine can handle).
I've known plenty of people for whom upgradeable laptops make no sense- by the time newer parts come out, their poor devices have been accidentally thrown down the stairs multiple times and are only being held together by hopes and dreams.
For others who are a little gentler on their devices, if upgrade parts were not absurdly expensive, and if other aspects of the "core" interaction experience were still modern-ish- basically if we haven't moved to 8K OLED screens etc- then why not just update what you've got?
> and which would be my favorite machine if I could upgrade the CPU.
Which means "if I could spend some money to upgrade the CPU, it would go from okay for light use to good for all uses, and that would be a good deal since I love everything about the machine other than the slow processor".
Regarding your other points - yes, upgrading the CPU in isolation might be impractical. On the other hand, I like the chassis enough that I've already thought about replacing the whole mainboard with a Pi based version, so swapping in a NUC is still pretty reasonable sounding.
For example if a rPi is an attractive upgrade, limited compute isn’t the motivating issue.
- They're more expensive to design and build
- yet they also get a lower return on investment since consumers now have a cheaper upgrade path
It's the usual problem with consumerism: companies couldn't give a crap about the environment nor longer term reusability because they're ultimately far less profitable than forcing people into perpetually buying new every few years.
And because backward compatibility requires bespoke supply chains — and now is a time when that cost is obvious.
You can build a new laptop out of whatever is available.
Also a laptop is more than just the motherboard and processor. You have the casing, keyboard, touchpad, cooling systems, battery, PSU, monitor, etc.
Sometime in 92 or 93.
The VP of engineering bought Zeos machines because literally “he liked the name.”
About as good a reason as any I guess since everyone’s opinions were mostly based on Computer Shopper ads anyway…and they were all clones.
Over the years I have looked at Nuc’s. They’re never cheaper per cyclebitbox than a laptop or desktop in quantity one.
If reduced size was important then one would make sense.
But I have always found more computer for fewer dollars in laptops.
YMMV.
The point of the NUC isn't that it's an entry level board (we already have Raspberry Pi and various copycat boards for that). The NUC is intended to be an upgrade from that but still in the compact form factor. Which is why many compared the first NUCs to Mac Minis. And to that end I know of some businesses that replaced their desktops with NUCs because of their cheap cost (relative to other business machines), low noise, low power usage, and compact form factor.
Additionally NUCs have been used as the basis for quite a number of devices in the broadcasting industry too. My last company had a few NUC-powered devices handed to them from various broadcasting partners.
I've also bought a NUC for myself for personal use. I bought it from a consumer web site and decided upon it after a recommendation from other consumers. So it's appeal isn't just as a low cost business machine.
Other comments in here have been equally glowing about the NUC as well. So I find it really hard to believe you had given any serious time investigating them before now. I mean you haven't even capitalised the product name correctly and didn't realise USB et al was onboard until halfway through our discussion.
If this product isn't for you then that's fine. I'm not here to convince you to buy one. And equally just because you don't see a value it doesn't mean others can't either.
Yet another anecdote but my Lenovo Thinkpad X1 from 2017 is still a very high quality laptop. Of course it's an ultrabook so I don't imagine replacing anything on it.
There's little business case for upgradeable laptops due to depreciation schedules and labor costs.
The history of upgradeable consumer and small business computers suggests that there's no actual demand.
Probably because people who want the latest, want the latest, not a half-measure.
There's good margins from FOMO.
Logistics swamp margins in fear of FOMO products.
It "shouldn't", but practicality considerations prevent that from happening. Even on desktops where theoretically every component is swappable, if you want to to upgrade your CPU you often have to replace the motherboard (because chipset compatability with the CPU) and maybe the RAM (because the CPU uses a newer DRAM generation). At this point the only thing you're retaining is the chassis, keyboard, and display which makes up a small overall cost of the laptop.
I don't really agree with this take.
I've looked a bit around for laptops at the end of 2021, and it was my impression that the difference between cheaper and pricier laptops from a given manufacturer is exactly those bits that don't change that much: nicer screens, cases, speakers, etc. They all come with the same CPUs and take the same RAM and NVMe drives.
That's true for Intel and their "Tick-Tock" cycle which breaks compatibility every other year. So far AMD's commitment to AM4 has shown that it's possible to upgrade a 5 years old motherboard to the latest CPU. Let's hope their next AM5 socket gets the same longevity.