Performance Metrics - 1

The ASRock Beebox N3000-NUC was evaluated using our standard test suite for low power desktops / industrial PCs. We revamped our benchmark suite in early 2014 after the publication of the Intel D54250WYK NUC review. We reran some of the new benchmarks on the older PCs also, but some of them couldn't be run on loaner samples. Therefore, the list of PCs in each graph might not be the same.

Futuremark PCMark 8

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 Celeron N3000 Cherry Trail SoC is obviously not as powerful as the Core-Y or Core-U platforms in the Logic Supply industrial PCs or even the Zotac ZBOX CI540 nano (Y-series). However, it shows marked improvement over the Bay Trail-based units.

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

GPU performance shows a similar trend to the CPU performance. The difference when compared to Bay Trail is considerable.

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.

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R15 - Single Thread

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R15 - Multiple Threads

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R15 - OpenGL

In Cinebench R15, the issues with the Celeron N3000 being a 2C/2T SoC come into play. In the multi-threaded benchmark, the quad-core Bay Trail SoCs in the ECS LIVA X and Zotac ZBOX CI320 nano manage better scores.

Introduction and Setup Impressions Performance Metrics - II
POST A COMMENT

45 Comments

View All Comments

  • MapRef41N93W - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link

    He said he wants to play ripped blu-ray's perfectly, so I assume he means straight off the disc loseless MKVs. iPad can't do that (you'd need to compress the files to H.264). Reply
  • khanov - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link

    Numbers or pure speculation? I think you might be surprised how many people have home theater systems. Reply
  • Navvie - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link

    This. My parents have had a 50" TV and 6.1 surround sound for, well, years now. I'd struggle to be 100% accurate, but I'd guess 8 years.

    And this is not me giving them my old equipment, they had speakers and an AV amp/receiver before I did.
    Reply
  • johnhopfensperger - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link

    Bitstream audio doesn't offer any advantage over PCM. Reply
  • abhaxus - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link

    Things may have changed but the two AVRs I have do not perform full audio processing on Multichannel LPCM. One of them will not even do Audyssey correction. Not going to replace a fantastic sounding $600 AVR when other devices (notably chromebox) can Bitstream under Linux for less money. Reply
  • nathanddrews - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link

    Correct. Very few AVRs will perform processing on LPCM. There are pros and cons to this, but in most cases, it's a con. HD bitstreaming has been "a thing" for a decade now. It's inexcusable for a new CPU/IGP to not support it. Laughable, even. Reply
  • joex4444 - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link

    Being able to send DTS-MA over optical/coaxial does offer an advantage if the AV receiver can decode it, though. Very uptight audiophiles may be concerned that a) the AV receiver decodes it "better" or b) the use of multiple 3.5mm to RCA cables to transfer 5.1/7.1 audio introduces more noises than a purely lossless digital connection would. However in a system like this, it's more important that the small amount of CPU power it does have isn't being burned to decode the audio but is instead saved by simply dumping it bit-for-bit over the coaxial/optical connection. Reply
  • Gadgety - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link

    @losergamer04

    I totally agree.
    Reply
  • twizzlebizzle22 - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link

    It finally looks like somebody understands that an extra 16GB of nand shouldn't cost the consumer £100. Reply
  • fic2 - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link

    But it is hard to know what the price is. For $20 you go from 32G->128G SSD, 2G->4G memory, but loose the Win10 Home license. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now