ASRock Reveals Beebox NUC PC, Features USB Type-C, Support For Three Displays

[Guest]

ASRock's latest device can display up to 4K resolution across three simultaneous screens.

ASRock Reveals Beebox NUC PC, Features USB Type-C, Support For Three Displays : Read more

 

[HideOut]

isnt that audio chipset crap? I mean a huge pile style?

 

[LostAlone]

isnt that audio chipset crap? I mean a huge pile style?

It's fine for what it's there to do. Remember, this isn't supposed to replace your desktop or even your laptop. They are more for public access computers in libraries and universities where the average user will only log on for a few minutes to print something off or check what books they need. AV capabilities are there because some people are going to want to sit and work and even relax a bit too but that's just not a priority especially since almost every machine that even uses the sound chip will be used with cheap crappy headphones. Also, almost no normal people could even recognize the difference between good and bad in this area, let alone appreciate the improved cost.

Like anything, these devices are for specific use cases. They're still interesting as devices, but don't judge them by the same standards as other machines. Of course they could use a better sound chip but that would push the price up and make NUCs less accessible and few if any customers would ever appreciate it.

 

[ianj14]

Almost, but not quite, suitable as a nano-server. Give the ability to have the quad core CPU part rather than the dual core, and an extra LAN port, and it would have been almost perfect.

 

[atheus]

isnt that audio chipset crap? I mean a huge pile style?

It's fine for what it's there to do. Remember, this isn't supposed to replace your desktop or even your laptop. They are more for public access computers in libraries and universities where the average user will only log on for a few minutes to print something off or check what books they need. AV capabilities are there because some people are going to want to sit and work and even relax a bit too but that's just not a priority especially since almost every machine that even uses the sound chip will be used with cheap crappy headphones. Also, almost no normal people could even recognize the difference between good and bad in this area, let alone appreciate the improved cost.

Like anything, these devices are for specific use cases. They're still interesting as devices, but don't judge them by the same standards as other machines. Of course they could use a better sound chip but that would push the price up and make NUCs less accessible and few if any customers would ever appreciate it.

What are you talking about? This thing comes with a remote. It's obviously designed to work as a HTPC and/or living room entertainment device.

 

[InvalidError]

isnt that audio chipset crap? I mean a huge pile style?

In a HTPC setup, most people would likely end up using HDMI digital sound anyway. In most other cases where people might use a NUC, I doubt sound is going to be a major concern. For things like office PCs, PoS terminals and countless similar applications, the sound may never get used at all.

 

[BulkZerker]

isnt that audio chipset crap? I mean a huge pile style?

In a HTPC setup, most people would likely end up using HDMI digital sound anyway. In most other cases where people might use a NUC, I doubt sound is going to be a major concern. For things like office PCs, PoS terminals and countless similar applications, the sound may never get used at all.

Nevermind anyone that is really worried about SQ isn't even going to bother with the on board if they're piping it to speakers. DACs be cheep breh.

 

[2Be_or_Not2Be]

If this box has USB Type-C ports for future compatibility, then why are they listed as USB 3.0 instead of 3.1?

 

[InvalidError]

If this box has USB Type-C ports for future compatibility, then why are they listed as USB 3.0 instead of 3.1?

Because Type-C and USB3(.1) are two separate things. Type-C is just a connector specification and it can be used for USB1, USB2, USB3 and USB 3.1. There is no requirement for equipment with Type-C connectors to support USB3.1.

 

[2Be_or_Not2Be]

If this box has USB Type-C ports for future compatibility, then why are they listed as USB 3.0 instead of 3.1?

Because Type-C and USB3(.1) are two separate things. Type-C is just a connector specification and it can be used for USB1, USB2, USB3 and USB 3.1. There is no requirement for equipment with Type-C connectors to support USB3.1.

Good point, and you are correct. I just stated my question incorrectly.

I should have asked "If this box has USB Type-C ports for "future" compatibility, then why don't they support USB 3.1 instead of 3.0?"

 

[InvalidError]

I should have asked "If this box has USB Type-C ports for "future" compatibility, then why don't they support USB 3.1 instead of 3.0?"

That would have required add-on controllers. There are no chipsets with native USB 3.1 and most chipsets do not have enough bandwidth to comfortably accommodate it either. On Intel chipsets for example, the IO hub only has eight PCIE 2.0 lanes and implementing a full-speed USB3.1 would hog half of those to support a single port or sacrifice four of the CPU's PCIe 3.0 lanes to support two USB 3.1 ports reasonably well.

I would not seek out USB 3.1 until chipsets gain native support with appropriately beefed up interconnect between the chipset and CPU.

Another problem with USB 3.1 is that the complexity behind USB 3.0 is already making most chip designers implement only the minimum number of ports they can get away with. This can only get worse with the full 3.1 implementation. Type-C also adds a fair amount of complexity of its own, which means tons of devices will likely end up supporting only a subset of alternate modes, if any at all.

 

[2Be_or_Not2Be]

I should have asked "If this box has USB Type-C ports for "future" compatibility, then why don't they support USB 3.1 instead of 3.0?"

That would have required add-on controllers. There are no chipsets with native USB 3.1 and most chipsets do not have enough bandwidth to comfortably accommodate it either. On Intel chipsets for example, the IO hub only has eight PCIE 2.0 lanes and implementing a full-speed USB3.1 would hog half of those to support a single port or sacrifice four of the CPU's PCIe 3.0 lanes to support two USB 3.1 ports reasonably well.

True, but there's basically only USB ports available to the end-user. You can't add a dGPU, so why not devote the unused PCI lanes to something useful, like a USB 3.1 controller?

I suppose it's a moot point, though; I'm sure the real reason why 3.1 wasn't supported was just due to the cost of the controller.

 

[InvalidError]

I suppose it's a moot point, though; I'm sure the real reason why 3.1 wasn't supported was just due to the cost of the controller.

Well, what I wrote earlier was for desktop CPUs. The Celeron N3000 only has four PCIe 2.0 lanes. On top of that, may not even have enough processing power to comfortably keep up with USB 3.0 in the first place.

Bodging a USB 3.1 controller in there would likely be a waste of time, money, materials and effort.