I think the cpu on this thing is too old (and therefore underpowered, yet power inefficient) to justify the price. For $85 more, you can build an Intel NUC mini pc that’s an order of magnitude better than this (assuming you can get Windows from somewhere or if you plan to use Linux):
Intel NUC 12 Pro Core i3-1220p ($330)
512GB P41 Solidgm ($25)
16GB DDR4 ($30)
“You can get a faster PC if you pay more” is not the revelation you think it is. The cost of a Windows license alone blows out any cost/performance advantage in your example.
I will say too as an owner of this exact model, performance isn’t an issue at all no matter the OS. It even makes OpenBSD, notorious for “feeling” slow compared to Linux, seem just as responsive and modern as any other OS I’ve used on it.
I think the only two downsides to buying this particular model is that the 9xxx series of Intel CPUs may end up on the chopping block of the next major Windows release given Microsoft’s previous boneheaded move with Windows 11, and the integrated Intel GPU is not nearly as good as the Iris XE and Arc based graphics offered with the latest SoCs. On that second point though, you can still watch 4Kp30 and 1080p60 video with no dropped frames on any OS on this machine, so it’s a solid HTPC or office PC. My personal favorite feature of this device is that it has not one but two M.2 SSD ports, as well as a 2.5" SSD/HDD tray.
The issue here is the 9500T, it’s a 9th gen which means no Hyperthreading so this is 6-core 6-thread. Also this is a T processor so it’s got an extremely low TDP, which means that this is not ideal for office work(productivity) and would be absolute trash for any form of gaming. Also you will be unable to enable XMP(locked down motherboard) so upgrading RAM is of no value.
I also wouldn’t touch that i3 1220p, these things are both the definition of e-waste UNLESS you need a low power solution for some reason. If I was going to buy something with one of these procs it would be the truly slimline micro desktop
I’m looking for a small PC to handle web-surfing, e-mail, light office productivity (small spreadsheets, word, powerpoint, Zoom). Currently, I connect a laptop to a cheap USB-C hub that serves a 27" widescreen monitor, keyboard, & webcam, but I don’t always bring laptop home from work and don’t want to run all my personal files through my work laptop. If not this, any thoughts on a sub $500 machine that would be significantly better?
which means that this is not ideal for office work(productivity) and would be absolute trash for any form of gaming.
I’m not sure what kind of futuristic office work you’re into, but it’s more than enough horsepower for typical office duties. I should know, we deploy these at several of our workstations at my job and I was impressed enough to buy one of my own for home use. I agree you won’t be doing any AAA gaming, but light 2D games would be just fine on it.
As for the comment about upgrading RAM, well the max on these is 32GB so there’s only so far you can go, and if 16GB isn’t enough for you then this is not the system for you anyway.
This machine is perfectly fine for your stated needs, and is probably a bit overkill. As I stated in another comment, we use these for exactly those purposes at work and it’s more than enough. My only concern with these is Windows 12 and beyond, but we haven’t even reached the end of Windows 10 support yet so that’s nothing to worry about for at least several years to come.
You don’t know what you are talking about. It turns out i3 1220p is more powerful than the 11th gen core i7s. You don’t seem to realize the generational gap between the 11th gen and the 12th gen.
Don’t believe me, that’s just what the benchmarks say:
This is probably fine for what you are doing, I didn’t say it won’t be able to handle what most people need from their computer. What I did say was you’d be paying too much for the performance you are getting, given how old the CPU is. $200 is probably more reasonable for something like this, and then only for people who don’t mind a much slower computer.
Fair point, and I paid $250 for my personal one so I’m happy with it. I still think “much slower” is a bit misleading though; there are benchmarks and then there are real world results, and most people doing everyday computer stuff won’t be able to tell a difference between even a Skylake 6xxx series and a current 13th gen chip, to say nothing of this one that’s right in the middle. At my company we even have a few Haswell (4th gen) machines holding on for light duty stuff like printing labels and browsing websites; they will be retired when Windows 10 loses mainstream support in two years because we aren’t big enough to need an extended service contract. Still, those machines are effectively no different in real world, in-use performance than the 9th and 11th gen workstations we have recently started moving to. I’m the IT manager and I can run whatever I want to, and I’m on an 8th gen i5-based EliteDesk for my main workstation because it meets my needs; I’m not going to move all my stuff over just for bragging rights.
I will concede though, that beyond Windows 11 support, power efficiency is a valid reason to move past 8th gen and lower systems. Performance per watt has made huge leaps in the past few generations.