this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
659 points (98.0% liked)

Selfhosted

60831 readers
1002 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
ayyy@sh.itjust.works
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world
659
Intel is quitting on its adorable, powerful, and upgradable mini NUC computers (www.theverge.com)
submitted 3 years ago by Clothing8727@lemmy.tuxprint.com to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
193 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Damn, this is a sad day for the homelab.

The article says Intel is working with partners to "continue NUC innovation and growth", so we will see what that manifests as.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bobert@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 years ago (3 children)

Between Minisforum and Beelink putting out NUC-likes with AMD, Intel just can't compete. I'm biased in favor of team red to begin with, but you just cannot tell me an Intel NUC provides better per dollar value than the above's offerings. I've used NUCs, I like NUCs, but why pay more for less when there exist alternatives?

[–] billygoat@lemmy.fmhy.ml 7 points 3 years ago (1 children)

Exactly, for a home lab I would pick an Amd over Intel just to have the extra cores on top of costing less.

[–] radiated@lemm.ee 8 points 3 years ago (3 children)

The reason for wanting intel is the iGPU to get quicksync.

[–] billygoat@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 3 years ago

I’m not too knowledgeable on the topic but I thought the amd iGPU had vce, which is a their version of quicksync?

[–] Pete90@feddit.de 2 points 3 years ago

Exactly. The only reason why I'm waiting for NUC12 right now. As far as my limited knowledge goes, AMD is behind here. Correct me, if I'm wrong.

[–] Clothing8727@lemmy.tuxprint.com 5 points 3 years ago

For me it's the hardware transcoding capabilities of the Nuc is what makes it stand out.

Quick sync is so good and well supported that Intel is a no brainier for me.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago

I mean, they're the OEM, they could easily have lowered their own prices. It's not like they were taking a loss on each unit.