An Eve Small Slim Form Factor Desktop


#1

Hi everyone, one thing I was thinking of that there is a lot of half measures around in the market is a good small form factor desktop PC that offers enough power to do things like connect eGPU’s and other accessories e.g 4k monitors ect.

The best of late seems to be the Skull Canyon NUC from Intel or a Mac Mini (which are seriously over priced for their performance).

Looking at what Eve have achieved with the V there is a big gap for me in these devices. Just a thought, lets see what everyone else thinks.


#2

My inital thoughts are, looking at the Skull Canyon NUC you are going to pay £600, $700 for the box with the processor, no SSD or Memory.

My minimum requirements would be:

  • i5, i7 processors
  • Up to 32GB RAM support
  • m.2 SSD support or full SSD / Laptop drive 2.5 inch
  • Slim formfactor instead of tall and thin although if it could be put on stand for either or that would be cool.
  • Thunderbolt 3 for eGPU x 2 or 1 USB type C and 1 TB3
  • Dual monitor support
  • Gigabit eithernet and AC dual band wireless
  • USB 3.0 Type A at least 2
  • Seperated Headphone and Mic Jack

Nice to haves:

  • SD card slot
  • More USB ports
  • Option for OS pre installed

What would be super amazing is if it could be dockable into an eGPU, i saw the concept on a video at some point where the NUC basically docked into the side of an eGPU and all looked really sweet together and avoided the cable mess but allowed the device to be taken out and moved more easily.


#4

Yeah, I can’t seem to find any alternatives currently in the market. They all use Atom or Celeron processors, only up to 8GB RAM and only one USB 3.0 port. I personally wouldn’t find much use for it, though. If it’s a desktop PC with no battery, it doesn’t really matter how big it is, as long as it’s not huge. If you want to fit it in a tight space, like behind a TV, I think something like this would work:
http://www.gtweb.net/Image/ImageDictionary/244/4
It also fits a full-size graphics card, which is more compact than having a separate eGPU box.
That said, if you do have a use case for it, there is almost no competition.


#6

Nope. That is so untrue. :stuck_out_tongue: Once we have hardware that runs at the same speed as current gaming desktops, but takes up less space, new and more powerful hardware will be available in the “big” desktop form factor. Game requirements will automatically rise. This happens all the time…
Oh, not to mention, desktops are less expensive.


#8

A gaming desktop was ALWAYS much cheaper than a gaming laptop with similar power. And gaming NUC never existed anyway.

I’m saying that you can play DOOM ona toaster now, but that didn’t stop developers from raising game requirements. There are games that need a monster PC to run properly, and only $2000 laptops can run them even with minimal settings. After a couple more years, this will become the standard for all PC games because these specifications will become mainstream. It was this way all the time until now, and I don’t see a reason why it would change.


#10

OK let me quote you:

Oh yes, they were MUCH cheaper.

Nope again.

That’s what I said in my previous two comments…

Steam machines are there for the brand name, nothing more. I don’t quite understand the concept of these NUCs, because they’re so tight that their price is even higher than laptops. You can buy a high-end gaming laptop for much cheaper than a NUC + eGPU.


#12

Hmmm, comparing to consoles? Yes. Because consoles are built to be as cheap as possible, and usually when you’re buying a console you end up getting quite old hardware.

And 2. you mentioned gaming, so I replied about gaming.


#14

Uh… The mainstream gaming community plays games like Crysis 3 and Watch Dogs. Getting to run that on a NUC? Fat chance. After 5 years, it will be possible, but people will play much newer and more advanced games than that.

And who told you that it’s:

???

I’ve met ONE person who owns a console. ONE.


#16

I withdraw my post because I am not able to oversee this area: but now I think I can re-post it:
Did you have a look at the Shuttle systems?
They have Cube, Slim and Nano systems.
http://www.shuttle.eu/products/slim/

I am a very satisfied Shuttle XPC Cube user - but do not know too much about the other form factors…


#17

Yes, I have seen Shuttle before,

The main requirements for me they dont meet are:

Thunderbolt 3 at least 6th gen intel (although its sais they do that now but on the data sheets its doesnt)
I dont beleive they are compatible with any form of eGPU

I am not sure on prices for Shuttle.

I like that you can VESA mount them though, thats definately a plus but the loss of eGPU connectivity precents me bing able to use it for what I would want. I already use a Dell Optiplex Small form factor for a media server with XBMC.


#18

Looks like they do not support Thunderbolt.
Some, e.g. http://www.shuttle.eu/products/slim/dh170/overview/, support 6th generation Intel CPU.


#19

LOL calm down man… Since when is it forbidden to discuss things?


#21

I do respect your opinion and I ask you to respect my opinion as well. But my arguments are based on facts. Yours are based on dreams. And now you’re accusing me. That is just wrong.


#23

So… what are they based on? Can you remind me?
I’m not acting in shock that people have a use case. I’m only acting in shock if people come up with some ridiculous solution to something. Or if they tell me something that is completely the opposite of what I see. Like “the majority of mainstream gamers use consoles”. I mean, I have seen just ONE person who owns that thing… OK, I know that isn’t good either. I should probably show that less. But it’s a very natural reaction :slight_smile:


#25

So… it turns out you know more what I respect and what I don’t than me, myself? Do you realize how pathetic this sounds? I have nothing against your view. But saying “mainstream gamers use consoles” is NOT!!! an opinion. It’s a statement. You stated it as a fact. And false facts need to be corrected. Now, I don’t know how much true or false it is where you live, but since I have a totally different experience, I took the only logical step and asked you if you’re sure about it.


#26

(This is a comment on gamers, not the discussion you’re having about discussing.)
Well, I wouldn’t agree a hundred percent, but I would say that a large part of mainstream gamers are on console. I don’t have stats on it, and I don’t bother to get any, but I do know that there are plenty.
Personally I see little reason to get a console other than console exclusive games, but plenty people buy and use them.

(Then to the discussion of discussing.)

This isn’t [quote=“pauliunas, post:25, topic:3910”]
asked you if you’re sure about it
[/quote]as far as I can see.
I am slightly pulling now, but I have to agree that you at times are going overboard in discussions. It isn’t rare that a discussion is you monologuing with a few other people. (Yes, I do know what a monologue is.)


#27

First of all, I think that maybe came across more aggressive than intended, but what we need to remember is that no individual is personally indicative of the market as a whole. For me, most of my friends console game, I only know of one who games on his PC. But my friends are also not kids - they are all 40+ish adults (and their children) who don’t want a pc in their living room, or don’t want to have to go into the office/den to play on the computer. As an aside, many of these friends are also game developers, so they are serious gamers.

Yes, as all the news is saying, in 2016 pc games as a whole had a larger market share than console (32% vs 29%) but 5% of that was casual webgames, leaving 27% for “real” games. The real future of games in mobile. Currently at 27% market share, it is projected to grow to 34% by 2019. (with console to go down to 26% and PC (- casual) down to 25%)


#28

Hmm… interesting numbers. What country are these statistics from? In Lithuania it would probably be something like 90% PC. And I don’t know if I understood it correctly… when you speak of PC games, you cross out browser games because they’re not “real” ones - and then you compare that number to 27% on smartphones… Can you elaborate what this number signifies? All I can see on smartphones is Angry Birds and Candy Crush :confused: I’ve looked for it myself, but I couldn’t really find a single “serious” game on Android.


#29

You might need to look a bit over the table.

There is a game called Adventure Quest 3D its in development but it will live up to its awsome outdated 2d Flash original.
Free to play


#30

these are worldwide numbers. The 5% are things like flash games and facebook games, and they more closely resemble phone games, but have their own category. “real” games are things like league of legends, WoW, and World of Tanks etc, and other fully immersive games. I believe Lithuania actually has the fastest broadband in the world, which likely skews the national statistics there. (though I’m not certain)