MAY 2020 PCWorld 83
speed holds up well against full-socketed
95W+ parts, as the 9900K clocks in at 18
minutes and the 2700X at about 20 minutes.
For processing smaller, shorter jobs, you
don’t give up too much performance.
As in previous years, I also ran HandBrake
separately with Intel’s Extreme Tuning Utility
(XTU) open in the background, to see how
hot this NUC gets under a full CPU load.
According to XTU’s monitoring tools, the
Core i9-9980HK hit a max temperature of 75
degrees Celsius while averaging 3.44GHz
across all 8 cores. The result tracks with my
expectations—temperatures drop as NUC
size increases. (Skull Canyon ran at 100
degrees Celsius during this same test, while
Hades Canyon ran at 84 degrees Celsius.)
Gaming performance
Given that the NUC9i9QNX relies on discrete
graphics for its gaming chops, our curiosity
about its performance revolved around three
questions. First and foremost, would its
densely packed chassis lack sufficient air flow
and throttle performance?
On a more philosophical level, we also
wondered just how much skipping the
purchase of a discrete graphics card hampers
the potential of this NUC. What exactly
happens when you rely solely on the Core
i9-9980HK’s integrated graphics?
Finally, does having a mobile CPU pull
down performance relative to a system with a
desktop processor?
3DMark Fire Strike
We kick off the gaming party with 3DMark’s
well-known synthetic benchmark, which
simulates gaming at 1080p on Medium
settings. Since we’re including older NUCs
and their integrated graphics in our
comparison, we’ve once again isolated the
graphics score to minimize potential influence
of the CPU on results.
Alienw51m R1are Area
Core i9-9900K
PCWStreamorld ing PC
Ryzen 7 2700X
Acer Predator Helios 700
Core i9-9980HK
Asus ROG Zephyrus G14
Ryzen 9 4900HS
Ghost Canyon NUC
Core i9-9980HK
MCore i9-9880HSI GE Raider-51
Dell XPS 15 7590Core i9-8950HK
HP OmCore i7-9750Hen 17
Hades Canyon NUC
Core i7-8809G
Acer Nitro 5 AN517-51-56Y W
Core i5-9300H
Skull Canyon NUCCore i7-6770HQ
HandBrake Encode 0.9.9
Seconds
SHORTER BARS INDICATE BETTER PERFORMANCE
1,128
1,386
1,316
1, 595
1,251
1,4 45
1,358
2,115
2,356
2,725
2,871