Intel’s original Compute Stick was a neat idea that ultimately wasn’t executed very well. Any system based on one of Intel’s Atom processors is going to be a little slow, but flaky wireless, inconsistent performance, and a clunky setup process all made it less appealing than it could have been. It had all of the hallmarks and rough edges of a first-generation product.
Today Intel showed us its next-generation Compute Sticks, and it’s clear that the company is taking seriously the criticism of the first model. There are three new versions to talk about: the lowest-end stick uses a Cherry Trail Atom CPU and is the closest relative to the first-generation Compute Stick. The other two use more powerful Skylake Core M processors—one has a Core m3-6Y30 processor, and another has a Core m5-6Y57 CPU with Intel’s vPro management features enabled.
All three sticks share the same basic design. The first-generation stick used a bulky, glossy plastic housing that made it look and feel more like a reference design than an actual shipping product, but all three new models switch to a softer, curvier case that looks more refined.
The Atom version includes a quad-core x5-Z8300 CPU, 2GB of 1600MHz DDR3 RAM, and 32GB of eMMC storage. The big upgrade is the wireless, which dumps the Realtek solution from the first Compute Stick in favor of Intel’s own 7265 802.11ac and Bluetooth 4.0 solution. This Wi-Fi adapter is a mainstay in many Ultrabooks and in my experience it’s been pretty reliable—some of that will depend on the Compute Stick’s antennas, but with a little luck it won’t suffer from the connectivity issues I ran into with the first model.
For those of you put off by the original Compute Stick’s single USB 2.0 port, Intel has added a second USB 3.0 port to the new stick. It’s still got a micro SD card slot for expansion, a power button, and a lock slot, and the only display connector is the male HDMI connector sticking out of the end. Power is still provided via a micro USB port on one side—Intel says that power through HDMI is a possibility for the future but that it’s not feasible with current standards.


Loading comments...