MSI Cubi NUC AI+ 3MG review: Panther Lake in an understated mini PC

Can this tiny panther roar?

MSI Cubi NUC AI+ 3MG
(Image credit: © Tom's Hardware)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

MSI’s Cubi NUC AI+3MG offers a quiet, compact computing experience with easily upgradable RAM and storage. However, its $2,000 price is very expensive, and the iGPU doesn't allow for gaming alongside your office work.

Reasons to buy

  • +

    Compact, understated design

  • +

    Easy access to RAM and SSD

  • +

    Low power, with strong performance

  • +

    Relatively quiet

Reasons to avoid

  • -

    More ports would be welcome

  • -

    Expensive

  • -

    Fingerprint reader is inconsistent

  • -

    Weak iGPU

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.

Intel’s codename "Panther Lake" Core Ultra Series 3 mobile processors were designed for laptops, but now we are starting to see them trickle over into mini PCs. That includes the recently launched MSI Cubi NUC AI+ 3MG (starting from $569, $1,999 as tested). This particular design is pleasingly compact and low-key in a traditional NUC manner, but can this matte black panther roar?

Design of the MSI Cubi NUC AI+ 3MG

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
Mark Tyson
News Editor

Mark Tyson is a news editor at Tom's Hardware. He enjoys covering the full breadth of PC tech; from business and semiconductor design to products approaching the edge of reason.

  • Pierce2623
    Kinda surprised to see 16 cores on 18a get smashed that hard by 12 cores of zen5 from 2024 on 4nm. Honestly though i imagine Intel’s CPU design is the power hog more so than 18a. Apple wouldn’t be looking into Intel deals without having already run test chips to see if PPA would be competitive.

    Edit: don’t forget that AMD also runs their own E core design to maximize nT performance per area. So it’s not like desktop where we’re comparing all P cores to s hybrid design.
    Reply
  • DS426
    $2K (ok, street price of about $1660) to get what? It's not strong enough for real local AI workloads and not strong enough to game (not at 1080p anyways). Might as well spend closer to $1000 and get lower specs to accomplish the same use cases and workloads at barely more time spent doing so, such as the Core Ultra 5 model. That or an AMD-based NUC that can actually game and perform other tasks more quickly at the same or lower pricing.

    As configured, I don't see this reviewed model as very competitive or compelling.
    Reply
  • Lamarr the Strelok
    Fairly surprised it ran Shadow of tomb raider @ 37 fps. Old game sure but it can look pretty darn good. Technically running cyberpunk is impressive too.
    Reply
  • usertests
    The Geekom is only useful in this comparison to show that single-channel memory will strangle an already bandwidth-starved iGPU.
    Reply
  • beyondlogic
    it will have memory issues later down the road like most msi hardware lol least every msi board ive owned or equipment pricing is a joke
    Reply
  • thestryker
    For $2000 they could have at least included DDR5-6400 CSODIMMs.
    Pierce2623 said:
    Kinda surprised to see 16 cores on 18a get smashed that hard by 12 cores of zen5 from 2024 on 4nm.
    You're surprised that 4P/8E/4LPE/16T using 55W is beaten by 4 Zen 5/8 Zen 5c/24T using >75W? It would be surprising if it didn't. PTL, like LNL, doesn't scale particularly well with extra power whereas Zen 5 tends to be able to (to an extent). Then there's the reality of the E-cores: Depending on the workload the E-cores have rough IPC spanning from Zen 2 to Zen 4. I suspect even power matched the AMD parts would come out ahead in most MT, but it would be closer.
    Reply
  • JohnyFin
    Do not understand people who buying that hot and noisy brick. For the same price you get one shelf up better computer, silent with water cooling.
    Reply
  • Pierce2623
    thestryker said:
    For $2000 they could have at least included DDR5-6400 CSODIMMs.

    You're surprised that 4P/8E/4LPE/16T using 55W is beaten by 4 Zen 5/8 Zen 5c/24T using >75W? It would be surprising if it didn't. PTL, like LNL, doesn't scale particularly well with extra power whereas Zen 5 tends to be able to (to an extent). Then there's the reality of the E-cores: Depending on the workload the E-cores have rough IPC spanning from Zen 2 to Zen 4. I suspect even power matched the AMD parts would come out ahead in most MT, but it would be closer.
    Yeah I just thought Panther Lake woukd be better with that many cores. Also other tests have already shown that Strix Point does indeed beat it at iso-power in multithreaded tests. The only impressive part of the chip is apparently the part that’s TSMC n3 with high density libraries. I think that regardless of of how heterogeneous the two setups are that it looks bad that 18a with more cores loses in pure multithreaded power efficiency to a 4/8 on n4 and Strix Point is a much better balanced chip than this model with 4 Xe cores that beats this chip in everyway other than single core performance. Panther Lake is worthless without the big iGPU. I’d literally go for the Arrow Lake laptop chips over any panther lake chip without the big iGPU and 16MB that acts like an “infinity cache” to reduce memory bandwidth needs.
    Reply
  • thestryker
    Pierce2623 said:
    Yeah I just thought Panther Lake woukd be better with that many cores. Also other tests have already shown that Strix Point does indeed beat it at iso-power in multithreaded tests. The only impressive part of the chip is apparently the part that’s TSMC n3 with high density libraries. I think that regardless of of how heterogeneous the two setups are that it looks bad that 18a with more cores loses in pure multithreaded power efficiency to a 4/8 on n4 and Strix Point is a much better balanced chip than this model with 4 Xe cores that beats this chip in everyway other than single core performance. Panther Lake is worthless without the big iGPU. I’d literally go for the Arrow Lake laptop chips over any panther lake chip without the big iGPU and 16MB that acts like an “infinity cache” to reduce memory bandwidth needs.
    That's a really weird read on the situation. Zen 5 doesn't actually beat PTL to any degree that matters in MT without blowing power consumption and it's worse at almost everything else. They're close enough in MT performance that the variance in clock speed for Intel dictates which part wins. PTL is also as fast or faster than all of the mobile ARL parts except again for higher power consumption.

    If power consumption doesn't matter then the only thing that should matter is absolute performance and/or perf/$.

    I get it you hate Intel for whatever reason and I should remember that and just avoid engaging, but what you're saying simply doesn't reflect reality and anyone doing that bugs me.
    Reply