Intel NUC 9 Extreme Kit (Ghost Canyon) Review: In Its Compute Element

A pricey barebones PC with a new form factor

Intel NUC 9 Extreme Kit (Ghost Canyon)
(Image credit: © Tom's Hardware)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

The Intel NUC 9 Extreme Kit (Ghost Canyon) is a pricey barebones PC that fits a discrete GPU. The Compute Element with mobile Intel CPU makes for an exciting new form factor, though.

Pros

  • +

    Tiny chassis

  • +

    Fairly easy to upgrade

  • +

    Strong port selection

  • +

    Fits discrete GPU

  • +

    Three-year warranty

Cons

  • -

    Very expensive

  • -

    Last-generation CPU

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

There’s a contingent of the PC community that loves small, space-saving systems. With the NUC 9 Extreme Kit (formerly known as “Ghost Canyon”), Intel has paved the way for a new form factor that can be even smaller than Mini-ITX. It is powered by the Compute Element -- a PCIe-based module with an 9th Gen Intel mobile chip inside. In theory, this paves the way for high-end systems that are smaller than ever before. It’s sold as a barebones kit, so you’ll have to bring your own RAM, SSDs, operating system, and, if you want, a discrete GPU, which pushes the i9 version we reviewed far past its base $1,639.99 price tag. 

That makes the NUC 9 Extreme Kit fit for a specific type of person: one who wants their gaming desktop to be as small as possible, and isn’t worried about paying for it. But if it catches on, the Compute Element could become one of the biggest changes to PC building we’ve seen in decades. 

Andrew E. Freedman
Senior Editor

Andrew E. Freedman is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on laptops, desktops and gaming. He also keeps up with the latest news. A lover of all things gaming and tech, his previous work has shown up in Tom's Guide, Laptop Mag, Kotaku, PCMag and Complex, among others. Follow him on Threads @FreedmanAE and BlueSky @andrewfreedman.net. You can send him tips on Signal: andrewfreedman.01

  • JayNor
    There are leaks about a NUC 11 box for a couple of Tiger Lake implementations... Panther Canyon and Phantom Canyon.

    https://hothardware.com/news/intels-panther-canyon-phantom-canyon-tiger-lake-nucs-leak
    Reply
  • ShattaAD
    JayNor said:
    There are leaks about a NUC 11 box for a couple of Tiger Lake implementations... Panther Canyon and Phantom Canyon.

    https://hothardware.com/news/intels-panther-canyon-phantom-canyon-tiger-lake-nucs-leak
    Isn't Tiger Lake intended to be 28W max? Unless, they release 45W, 8-core parts in late 2020/early 2021 but by then they'll have Rocket Lake and Alder Lake which looks more like the contender in the same TDP class.
    Reply
  • ShattaAD
    I wonder if AMD will enter into the NUC/CE equivalent market with their super efficient Ryzen 4000 series + PCIe 4.0 support before Intel's own PCIe 4.0 CPUs get released into the wild, just to undercut Intel's market share. Maybe they'll partner with Zotac again to do it knowing Zotac's experience in designing miniature main-boards.
    Reply
  • Gurg
    The cost of this unit was bloated by:
    �
    StorageIntel Optane 905p 380GB SSD (PCIe NVMe)$504.66
    Kingston KC2000 1TB SSD (PCIe NVMe)
    vs: faster Samsung 970 Evo+ 500gb $120 and/or 1gb for $220.

    The Hyper X 3200 memory at $114 is overpriced compared to $84 Gskill 3600 Cl16 2x8gb .
    Reply
  • excalibur1814
    " far past its base $1,639.99 price tag !"

    No. Instant no. It's tempting, but no. There's just too much choice to splash down that amount of cash on something like this. Plus, as we know, will intel release further modules and at what inflated price?
    Reply
  • cyrusfox
    Gurg said:
    The cost of this unit was bloated by:
    �
    StorageIntel Optane 905p 380GB SSD (PCIe NVMe)$504.66
    Kingston KC2000 1TB SSD (PCIe NVMe)
    vs: faster Samsung 970 Evo+ 500gb $120 and/or 1gb for $220.

    The Hyper X 3200 memory at $114 is overpriced compared to $84 Gskill 3600 Cl16 2x8gb .
    You really think the EVO 970 is faster than optane? Maybe in sequential speeds, When is that going to be relevant as both have sequential speeds in excess of 1.5 GB/s? How are you going to feed the storage that much data so that will will actually be a bottleneck?

    In all the other metrics that matter, Optane is far faster than the Evo 970, Pity the cost per gigabyte is 6x+, here is a link showing the 280GB of optane vs the 970 evo 1TB
    Reply