Networking and Storage Performance

Networking and storage are two major aspects which influence our experience with any computing system. This section presents results from our evaluation of these aspects in the Voyo V3.

There is no doubt that the most interesting part of the Voyo V3 specifications is the presence of a bonafide M.2 SATA SSD. At the price point of the system (around $200), most consumers would only be expecting disappointing eMMC storage. As we saw during the teardown process (detailed on the first page), the system includes a 128 GB M.2 2242 SSD made by FORESEE. There are two NAND flash packages (packaged by FORESEE themselves - so, we do not have visibility into the NAND flash vendor). The controller is the DRAM-less Silicon Motion SM2246XT. As per specifications, it doesn't support TLC flash. Hence, we can say with a high degree of confidence that the FORESEE SSD in the Voyo 3 has 128GB of MLC flash.

In terms of evaluation of the storage component, one option would be repetition of our strenuous SSD review tests on the drive(s) in the PC. Fortunately, to avoid that overkill, PCMark 8 has a storage bench where certain common workloads such as loading games and document processing are replayed on the target drive. Results are presented in two forms, one being a benchmark number and the other, a bandwidth figure. We ran the PCMark 8 storage bench on selected PCs and the results are presented below.

Futuremark PCMark 8 Storage Bench - Score

Futuremark PCMark 8 Storage Bench - Bandwidth

Daily workloads (of the type tested by PCMark 8's storage bench) have barely noticeable differences between the SSDs in these UCFF PCs when it comes to the storage subsystem score. However, the presence of a DRAM-less controller does bring down the storage bandwidth numbers for certain workloads. That said, for the types of workloads that the CPU in this system is suitable for, the SM2246XT-equipped FORESEE SSD is more than enough.

On the networking side, we restricted ourselves to the evaluation of the WLAN component. Our standard test router is the Netgear R7000 Nighthawk configured with both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz networks. The router is placed approximately 20 ft. away, separated by a drywall (as in a typical US building). A wired client is connected to the R7000 and serves as one endpoint for iPerf evaluation. The PC under test is made to connect to either the 5 GHz (preferred) or 2.4 GHz SSID and iPerf tests are conducted for both TCP and UDP transfers. It is ensured that the PC under test is the only wireless client for the Netgear R7000. We evaluate total throughput for up to 32 simultaneous TCP connections using iPerf and present the highest number in the graph below.

Wi-Fi TCP Throughput

In the UDP case, we try to transfer data at the highest rate possible for which we get less than 1% packet loss.

Wi-Fi UDP Throughput (< 1% Packet Loss)

Before discussing these results, it is time to bring up yet another ridiculous advertised aspect of the Voyo V3. Almost every shopping site listing the unit claims dual-band Wi-Fi along with Broadcom's 5G Wi-Fi logo (obviously unauthorized use). The WLAN chipset used in the Voyo V3 is the Realtek RTL8723BS, a 1x1 2.4GHz 802.11n + Bluetooth 4.0 radio that talks to the host SoC over SDIO. As one can see from the above two graphs, it is matched in the hall of shame only by the poor Wi-Fi on the Bay Trail-T Compute Stick. To add insult to injury, the size of the unit and the I/O integrated in the SoC ensure that there is no wired networking capability / RJ-45 port in the Voyo V3. Users will need an external USB 3.0 - Ethernet adapter, if a wired connection is desired.

Performance Metrics - II HTPC Credentials
Comments Locked

69 Comments

View All Comments

  • ragenalien - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    Is the wireless card replaceable.
  • ganeshts - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    The wireless card communicates via SDIO and is soldered to the board.
  • ganeshts - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    You can actually check out the board layout here: http://www.cnx-software.com/wp-content/uploads/201...

    The WLAN card is on the top right (where the black antenna pigtail comes out from), and you can see that it is indeed not replaceable.
  • Coelispex - Sunday, April 3, 2016 - link

    Hi Ganeshts,

    If we use a 802.11ac USB adapter, would it work for the Voyo V3?
  • Ratman6161 - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    I can't get past the Warez OS issue. If I wanted such a device with Windows on it, it better be a legally installed copy. The idea that I would need to go out and get my own copy means you have to add $100 to the price in order to get it leagal for what it was supposed to come with out of the box.
  • ganeshts - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    I don't think Microsoft allows for 'cheap' licenses if the hardware specs are as good as the Voyo V3.. particularly, I believe the cheap license is available only for the x86 version, not x64. Also, the RAM has to be 2GB or lesser (IIRC).

    Anyways, the cost for the Windows license is an issue with any PC that doesn't have neutered hardware specifications.
  • Slawek - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    What are results of Google Octane and Mozilla Kraken? If am going to use it for web browsing these are the most important benchmarks to know.
  • ganeshts - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    Web browsing is a major part of the PCMark 8 benchmarks - and those scores make it clear that this unit is better than other passively cooled Braswell PCs.

    Usually, we don't present web browser benchmarks for mini-PCs because they vary widely with the browser used and also updates to the browsers themselves - making it difficult to go back and compare against older units. It is a different case for more 'closed' systems such as tablets and smartphones. Because of this, we believe that the PCMark 8 browser tests (with their standardized browser engine) are more indicative of performance that users can get at any given point of time.
  • Slawek - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    On my laptop difference between the latest Firefox, Chrome and Safari is within 5%, this is precise enough tool that tells me about system performance. Both Octane and Kraken are easy to execute. I can walk up to Microsoft or Apple store and in less than a minute I can compare which computer is faster.
  • ganeshts - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    Can you tell me what is the difference between Firefox 30 and Firefox 44 ? I can't go back and power up every single PC reviewed before to rerun those benchmarks every time the browser version changes.

    I prefer a standardized browsing engine, and that is what PCMark 8 provides.

    It is nice to have quick scores to compare against what you already have, but it doesn't hold up under detailed scrutiny - we need repeatable and reproducible benchmarks for different use-cases.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now