Performance Metrics - I

The Intel NUC8i7HVK (Hades Canyon) was evaluated using our standard test suite for small form-factor gaming PCs. Not all benchmarks were processed on all the machines due to updates in our testing procedures. Therefore, the list of PCs in each graph might not be the same. In the first section, we will be looking at SYSmark 2014 SE, as well as some of the Futuremark benchmarks.

BAPCo SYSmark 2014 SE

BAPCo's SYSmark 2014 SE is an application-based benchmark that uses real-world applications to replay usage patterns of business users in the areas of office productivity, media creation and data/financial analysis. In addition, it also addresses the responsiveness aspect which deals with user experience as related to application and file launches, multi-tasking etc. Scores are meant to be compared against a reference desktop (the SYSmark 2014 SE calibration system in the graphs below). While the SYSmark 2014 benchmark used a Haswell-based desktop configuration, the SYSmark 2014 SE makes the move to a Lenovo ThinkCenter M800 (Intel Core i3-6100, 4GB RAM and a 256GB SATA SSD). The calibration system scores 1000 in each of the scenarios. A score of, say, 2000, would imply that the system under test is twice as fast as the reference system.

SYSmark 2014 SE - Office Productivity

SYSmark 2014 SE - Media Creation

SYSmark 2014 SE - Data / Financial Analysis

SYSmark 2014 SE - Responsiveness

SYSmark 2014 SE - Overall Score

SYSmark 2014 SE also adds energy measurement to the mix. A high score in the SYSmark benchmarks might be nice to have, but, potential customers also need to determine the balance between power consumption and the efficiency of the system. For example, in the average office scenario, it might not be worth purchasing a noisy and power-hungry PC just because it ends up with a 2000 score in the SYSmark 2014 SE benchmarks. In order to provide a balanced perspective, SYSmark 2014 SE also allows vendors and decision makers to track the energy consumption during each workload. In the graphs below, we find the total energy consumed by the PC under test for a single iteration of each SYSmark 2014 SE workload and how it compares against the calibration systems.

SYSmark 2014 SE - Energy Consumption - Office Productivity

SYSmark 2014 SE - Energy Consumption - Media Creation

SYSmark 2014 SE - Energy Consumption - Data / Financial Analysis

SYSmark 2014 SE - Energy Consumption - Responsiveness

SYSmark 2014 SE - Energy Consumption - Overall Score

Despite being fully patched for Meltdown and Spectre, the Core i7-8809G manages to outscore the partially patched Core i7-7700HQ-based ZBOX MAGNUS EK71080. It is beat in terms of raw score by the ZBOX MAGNUS PCs using the desktop CPUs (Core i7-6700 and Core i7-7700), but, those PCs consume much more energy to complete the workloads.

Futuremark PCMark 10

UL's PCMark 10 evaluates computing systems for various usage scenarios (generic / essential tasks such as web browsing and starting up applications, productivity tasks such as editing spreadsheets and documents, gaming, and digital content creation). We benchmarked select PCs with the PCMark 10 Extended profile and recorded the scores for various scenarios. These scores are heavily influenced by the CPU and GPU in the system, though the RAM and storage device also play a part. The power plan was set to Balanced for all the PCs while processing the PCMark 10 benchmark.

Futuremark PCMark 10 - Essentials

Futuremark PCMark 10 - Productivity

Futuremark PCMark 10 - Gaming

Futuremark PCMark 10 - Digital Content Creation

Futuremark PCMark 10 - Extended

Futuremark PCMark 8

We continue to present PCMark 8 benchmark results (as those have more comparison points) while our PCMark 10 scores database for systems grows in size. PCMark 8 provides various usage scenarios (home, creative and work) and offers ways to benchmark both baseline (CPU-only) as well as OpenCL accelerated (CPU + GPU) performance. We benchmarked select PCs for the OpenCL accelerated performance in all three usage scenarios. These scores are heavily influenced by the CPU in the system. The results should be analyzed while keeping in mind that most of the comparison systems have scores from the days prior to the release of the Meltdown and Spectre patches.

Futuremark PCMark 8 - Home OpenCL

Futuremark PCMark 8 - Creative OpenCL

Futuremark PCMark 8 - Work OpenCL

Miscellaneous Futuremark Benchmarks

Futuremark PCMark 7 - PCMark Suite Score

Futuremark 3DMark 11 - Extreme Score

Futuremark 3DMark 11 - Entry Score

Futuremark 3DMark 2013 - Ice Storm Score

Futuremark 3DMark 2013 - Cloud Gate Score

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R15

We have moved on from R11.5 to R15 for 3D rendering evaluation. CINEBENCH R15 provides three benchmark modes - OpenGL, single threaded and multi-threaded. Evaluation of select PCs in all three modes provided us the following results. Here, we see the benefits of running the CPU die with a 65W TDP. The scores match or beat the results from the Core i7-7700 in the ZBOX MAGNUS EN1080K.

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R15 - Single Thread

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R15 - Multiple Threads

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R15 - OpenGL

Introduction and Platform Analysis Performance Metrics - II


View All Comments

  • ganeshts - Thursday, March 29, 2018 - link

    The Radeon GPU CAN NOT do VP9 Profile 2 - so you will NEVER get YouTube HDR on the. No PAVP. QuickSync ecosystem support is way ahead of Radeon VCE. So, tell me why I am wrong in saying that the Intel iGPU is miles ahead of the Radeon Vega ? Any neutral industry observer can see that I am completely justified in making those claims.

    I am not talking about Ryzen APUs - I am talking about the Radeon GPU in the Core i7-8809G, as utilized in the NUC8i7HVK.
  • eva02langley - Friday, March 30, 2018 - link

    "So, tell me why I am wrong in saying that the Intel iGPU is miles ahead of the Radeon Vega ?"

    Because it can render games at 1080p...? This is seriously a question?

    This is actually incredible to see iGPU able to do that. And we forget at this time the PS4 and the Xbox One X capabilities.

    This is not a discrete GPU.
  • The_Assimilator - Monday, April 2, 2018 - link

    Way to take Ganesh's statement out of context to push in your own VEGA UBER ALLES viewpoint. He was very obviously talking about the video playback capabilities of Vega, which are objectively inferior to Intel's. Reply
  • Hifihedgehog - Friday, March 30, 2018 - link

    As a neutral industry observer myself, I have had to build with discrete graphics in ITX cases (with both Intel and AMD CPUs) because of the timing and handshaking issues of Intel NUCs’ DP-to-HDMI converters. I have no major qualms with Intel as CPU company; it is their graphics solutions that I am not fond of and well familiar with as being compromised. Reply
  • ganeshts - Friday, March 30, 2018 - link

    Not denying that the NUC's HDMI ports have some compatibility issues, but, to their credit, they have been very responsive and tried to figure out fixes (I spent almost 6 months last year trying to get their KBL NUC to work with the 4K TV in my testbed).

    Every vendor has some problem or the other. In my experience, NVIDIA has one of the best generic solutions for multimedia systems, but, Intel wins out in niche use-cases (YouTube HDR, for example). Less said about AMD, the better - their drivers for multimedia functions turned from good to bad to worse, and I don't think I have done any HTPC testing on AMD GPU-based system in the last couple of years - they basically haven't released anything competitive in that segment, to be honest. Hopefully, that changes with the Ryzen APUs, but, I can't say for sure unless it undergoes a thorough evaluation.

    Multiple readers email me with request for guidance on what to buy from a HTPC perspective. In most cases, I point them towards some NUC-based solution. Feedback after purchase has never been negative.
  • Hifihedgehog - Friday, March 30, 2018 - link

    “Less said about AMD, the better - their drivers for multimedia functions turned from good to bad to worse,”

    Please qualify this with an example. I and others at SmallFormFactor forums are using the Raven Ridge APUs, and I have had no issues with Kodi, MPC-BE and MadVR for 12-bit UHD home theater duty. Saying current generation AMD graphics drivers are bad and worse is just as inaccurate as saying Intel HD Graphics are good for nothing except Solitaire—both signify naïveté with either products.

    “In most cases, I point them towards some NUC-based solution. Feedback after purchase has never been negative.”

    I kindly point you to this thread, 674 replies and counting, responses comprised mostly of complaints. There have been droves of disgruntled NUC users this last generation. Intel NUCs have been awful, and many have abandoned them for alternative small form factor products.

    communities (dot) intel (dot) com/message/490689#490689
  • ganeshts - Friday, March 30, 2018 - link

    Example, right now with Vega GPU in Hades Canyon :

    Use VLC 3.0.1 with default preferences on Windows 10 latest stable release and attempt to play
    back an interlaced MPEG2 clip - the video output is blank and only the audio plays. The same scenario in systems using the KBL iGPU or NVIDIA GPUs is absolutely fine.

    Now, if the VLC developers have to do something special to make code that works for both Intel iGPU and NVIDIA GPU, I have to unfortunately say it is AMD's driver that is at fault for having undefined behavior in their video decode acceleration or rendering API.

    If you play only one type of codec and it works great for that, it doesn't mean the drivers are flawless.

    AMD drivers were good when their PR team was trying to promote the HQV benchmark for the HTPC market. They started turning bad around the AMD 7000 series where their DXVA APIs used to result in BSODs when people attempted to use them. And, after that, I got disillusioned with AMD's GPU for HTPC duties and stopped recommending them. Ryzen might be different - I haven't tested it yet. But, based on my experience in Hades Canyon, I am not very bullish.

    NUC-based, from my perspective, is any UCFF PC based on the -U series. In the KBL-U generation, my first recommendation has always been the ASRock Beebox-S 7200U, followed by the NUC7i7BNH : Both of them have got very good feedback from people I recommended them to. Btw, the incompatibility issue that I had with the NUC7i7BNH and the TCL 55P607 in HDR mode was actually fixed after a silent firmware update on the TV side. The blame is not on one supplier (holding no torch for Intel here, I am just saying that no one manufacturer can be blamed all the time).
  • Hifihedgehog - Saturday, March 31, 2018 - link

    VLC is well-known to be a overly processor intensive program (or CPU hog; see here: pcworld (dot) com/article/3023430/hardware/tested-vlc-vs-windows-10-video-player-the-winner-may-surprise-you.html ) and due to this in more recent years, many videophiles moved along to MPC-HC and MPC-BE. I do not understand why many computer geeks still insist on it. I have used the MPC twin programs for over five years now and have had no issues for codec usage with either, which rely on LAV filters. Last I used VLC, it used more than double the CPU usage, it had worse image scaling than the forks of MPC, and file support was just as good if not superior. Honestly, VLC was a great solution a decade ago, but times have changed and I now highly recommend and always use the MPC products. I cannot see any reason why to insist on VLC at this point especially with the problems you mention which I never encountered in the MPC forked projects. Reply
  • Hifihedgehog - Saturday, March 31, 2018 - link


    techhive (dot) com/article/2892383/which-is-the-better-free-video-player-mpc-hc-176-vs-vlc-22.html

    reddit (dot) com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/43do0n/is_anyone_still_using_vlc_if_thats_the_case/
  • Hifihedgehog - Saturday, March 31, 2018 - link

    videohelp (dot) com/softwareimages/madvr_1196.jpg Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now