Gemini Lake SFF PC Showdown: Intel's June Canyon (NUC7PJYH) and ECS's LIVA Z2 Reviewed
by Ganesh T S on December 20, 2018 8:00 AM ESTMiscellaneous Performance Metrics
This section looks at some of the other commonly used benchmarks representative of the performance of specific real-world applications.
3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R15
We use CINEBENCH R15 for 3D rendering evaluation. The program provides three benchmark modes - OpenGL, single threaded and multi-threaded. Evaluation of different PC configurations in all three modes provided us the following results.
The ECS LIVA Z2 suffers a bit in the OpenGL case, but, is neck and neck with the Arches Canyon NUC in the multi-threaded, and far ahead in the single-threaded case.
x265 Benchmark
Next up, we have some video encoding benchmarks using x265 v2.8. The appropriate encoder executable is chosen based on the supported CPU features. In the first case, we encode 600 1080p YUV 4:2:0 frames into a 1080p30 HEVC Main-profile compatible video stream at 1 Mbps and record the average number of frames encoded per second.
Our second test case is 1200 4K YUV 4:2:0 frames getting encoded into a 4Kp60 HEVC Main10-profile video stream at 35 Mbps. The encoding FPS is recorded. Unfortunately, both Gemini Lake systems were unable to complete this benchmark, exiting abruptly in the middle. The Arches Canyon encoded the 4K stream at 0.36 fps.
7-Zip
7-Zip is a very effective and efficient compression program, often beating out OpenCL accelerated commercial programs in benchmarks even while using just the CPU power. 7-Zip has a benchmarking program that provides tons of details regarding the underlying CPU's efficiency. In this subsection, we are interested in the compression and decompression rates when utilizing all the available threads for the LZMA algorithm.
In addition to the CPU, the RAM also plays a role here. ECS's decision to equip only one of the two SODIMM slots with RAM could be the culprit here.
Cryptography Benchmarks
Cryptography has become an indispensable part of our interaction with computing systems. Almost all modern systems have some sort of hardware-acceleration for making cryptographic operations faster and more power efficient. In this sub-section, we look at two different real-world applications that may make use of this acceleration.
BitLocker is a Windows features that encrypts entire disk volumes. While drives that offer encryption capabilities are dealt with using that feature, most legacy systems and external drives have to use the host system implementation. Windows has no direct benchmark for BitLocker. However, we cooked up a BitLocker operation sequence to determine the adeptness of the system at handling BitLocker operations. We start off with a 2.5GB RAM drive in which a 2GB VHD (virtual hard disk) is created. This VHD is then mounted, and BitLocker is enabled on the volume. Once the BitLocker encryption process gets done, BitLocker is disabled. This triggers a decryption process. The times taken to complete the encryption and decryption are recorded. This process is repeated 25 times, and the average of the last 20 iterations is graphed below.
Since all the considered CPUs have AES-NI capabilities, the above benchmark is representative of the sustainable clock speed and also the RAM characteristics.
Creation of secure archives is best done through the use of AES-256 as the encryption method while password protecting ZIP files. We re-use the benchmark mode of 7-Zip to determine the AES256-CBC encryption and decryption rates using pure software as well as AES-NI. Note that the 7-Zip benchmark uses a 48KB buffer for this purpose.
This shows that the relative numbers are similar to the ones observed in other benchmarks.
Yet another cryptography application is secure network communication. OpenSSL can take advantage of the acceleration provided by the host system to make operations faster. It also has a benchmark mode that can use varying buffer sizes. We recorded the processing rate for a 8KB buffer using the hardware-accelerated AES256-CBC-HAC-SHA1 feature.
Agisoft Photoscan
Agisoft PhotoScan is a commercial program that converts 2D images into 3D point maps, meshes and textures. The program designers sent us a command line version in order to evaluate the efficiency of various systems that go under our review scanner. The command line version has two benchmark modes, one using the CPU and the other using both the CPU and GPU (via OpenCL). We present the results from our evaluation using the CPU mode only. The benchmark (v1.3) takes 84 photographs and does four stages of computation:
- Stage 1: Align Photographs (capable of OpenCL acceleration)
- Stage 2: Build Point Cloud (capable of OpenCL acceleration)
- Stage 3: Build Mesh
- Stage 4: Build Textures
We record the time taken for each stage. Since various elements of the software are single threaded, and others multithreaded, it is interesting to record the effects of CPU generations, speeds, number of cores, and DRAM parameters using this software.
Stage 3 is likely memory performance-limited, unlike the first two stages that are reflective of the single-threaded performance capabilities.
Dolphin Emulator
Wrapping up our application benchmark numbers is the new Dolphin Emulator (v5) benchmark mode results.
This is again a test of the CPU capabilities, and the ordering expected based on the previous results is seen here too.
59 Comments
View All Comments
mode_13h - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
Maybe it's still dual-channel, but the speed drops due to difficulty driving the load. In the past, certain Intel CPUs would do things like that.craxity - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
@LMonty: The NUC works in dual-channel mode (tested 2x16GB, 2x8GB and 2x4GB), but the memory performance is simply low.I'm using a NUC7PJYH since June and already discussed the topic in Intel's forum.
LMonty - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
@craxity thank you for this info. Could you elaborate pls. on low memory performance? Wouldn't the memory bandwidth be dependent on the RAM speed (e.g. DDR4 2400 with 64-bit controller will result in 2400x8 = 19.2 GB/s single channel, 38.4 GB/s dual channel)?denywinarto - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
Any words on legacy boot ? I had to sell j4105 that i bought because it lacks legacy bootspeculatrix - Monday, December 31, 2018 - link
I'm not trying to be difficult but UEFI works well on modern Intel motherboards. It's all the crappy older systems, or cheap Chinese tablets, with crappy UEFI implementations that give UEFI a bad name.mode_13h - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
Thanks for this, but I sure wish you'd have included an i3 NUC (or whatever's the next step up with a performance-optimized core) and like a Pentium Gold G5400 desktop CPU.I'm always curious to know what one is leaving on the table by opting for Intel's power/cost-optimized product line (AKA its Atom-lineage processors).
GreenReaper - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
The LIVA Z2 looks to be underperforming, but perhaps not once you consider it's over 40% cheaper, includes an OS, and uses half the power. If you need more you could throw another stick of RAM in. Anything more and I suspect you'd want to step up to a full-fat CPU anyway.eastcoast_pete - Sunday, December 23, 2018 - link
I must say that I am disappointed with both these two "HTPC"s and the review. The review is cookie-cutter type and only just okay if what one want to know are the benchmark numbers shown, but is deficient in key areas. The biggest missing piece is: Are these Home Theater (!) PCs any good for home theater use? The answer (probably not) is buried in the last section in a single sentence: "The only disappointing aspect from a HTPC viewpoint is that HDR is not supported". That's it? In 2018/2019?@Ganesh: please expand on what these NUC-type units can and cannot do when it comes to playing media, and mention severe limitations like "no HDR" in the first paragraph or so! The missing information on these two "HTPC"s reviewed here include the HDMI standard that they feature and what that means (i.e. can they do UHD (4K), at how many frames/second, 8bit or 10bit color output etc.), can the CPU natively decode HEVC/VP9 etc. at what frame rate especially for UHD, how is the playback quality, is there tearing or stuttering etc. An actual test or two of decoding/playback capabilities might be important in an HTPC (!) review, don't you think? Lastly, information on the audio out (channels, connectivity, distortion..?) is similarly MIA.
For me, the summary for the two NUCs or NUCalikes reviewed here is: Nice, compact mini-computers for light computing and office use, but not suitable for use as a home theater PC as we approach 2019. As of now, UHD with HDR comes standard with essentially all new TVs, including almost all entry-level models (try to find a model year 2018/2019 TV set without those). A new HTPC that cannot even utilize those minimum capabilities is obsolete the moment it's purchased.
eastcoast_pete - Sunday, December 23, 2018 - link
@Ganesh To clarify: I know you didn't call them HTPCs in the title, but that is what many (most?) users are or will be considering these NUCs and NUCalikes for. Almost anybody I know bought their NUC for use as an HTPC, and that is where these Gemini Lake NUCs fall flat. It can get frustrating to have to tell people over and over "Yes, this NUC is cheaper. No, it will not give you the HTPC experience you're looking for". So, even if you haven't run the media playback tests on these and can't add the information, a stronger "buyer beware" and what to consider instead is in order. Intel made sure that Gemini Lake systems cannot provide the multimedia experience that a 2018/2019 HTPC should provide; for that, one has to buy a core-based NUC.silverblue - Sunday, December 23, 2018 - link
To be fair, I can't remember the last time I saw HTPC benchmarks, maybe it was back during the Kaveri era.