Performance Metrics - I

The BRIX Pro was evaluated using our standard test suite for low power desktops / industrial PCs. We have recently revamped our benchmark suite (after the publication of the Intel D54250WYK NUC review). We reran some of the new benchmarks on the original configuration 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

This is one of the new tests in our test suite. 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.

Futuremark PCMark 8

Futuremark PCMark 8

Futuremark PCMark 8

Miscellaneous Futuremark Benchmarks

Futuremark PCMark 7

Futuremark 3DMark 11

Futuremark 3DMark 2013

Futuremark 3DMark 2013

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

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R15

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R15

Recap Performance Metrics - II
POST A COMMENT

52 Comments

View All Comments

  • mikk - Saturday, June 14, 2014 - link

    No driver version as usual, crap. Reply
  • extide - Saturday, June 14, 2014 - link

    A little disappointing, I mean if you are building an iGPU system, you should be going for the best memory you can. 1866 is hardly much of an upgrade over 1600, you can easily get 2133 for a decent price, and 2400 or more if you want to spend. Reply
  • extide - Saturday, June 14, 2014 - link

    Also would love to see some AMD APU benchmarks on here as well,
    And you left in: "(Add note about GT540M if possible)."

    Otherwise pretty good!
    Reply
  • ganeshts - Saturday, June 14, 2014 - link

    Thanks, I fixed that :) I wasn't sure about getting the benchmark numbers from the Vision 3D 252B since I hadn't even booted that up in a long time. Actually, the whole piece was written up even before I started benchmarking that PC (which is why the references to the 540M probably stand out like a sore thumb!) Reply
  • monstercameron - Saturday, June 14, 2014 - link

    Intel apus dont respond quite the same as amd ones...ddr3-1600 is as good as it gets. Reply
  • hojnikb - Sunday, June 15, 2014 - link

    Yep, crystalwell can really help Reply
  • ddriver - Saturday, June 14, 2014 - link

    Disappointing? The best CPU performance you can get in that factor, in which BTW graphics performance is pretty much irrelevant. Reply
  • NeatOman - Sunday, June 15, 2014 - link

    1866/cas10 im sure was chosen to show what "normal ram" would result in. Also, if it where 2133/cas12 you would only be trading Mhz for Lantancy NOT resulting in any better performance at all. In fact you may even regress in compute heavy situations. Reply
  • Cellar Door - Monday, June 16, 2014 - link

    Absolutely!! I'm also very disappointed in the ram choice of the reviewer - this is 2014 for crying out loud, if you are going to test a $900 system, what's another $30 for a 2400mhz kit - which is what this system should be running. Absolute waste of time... I'm a big fan of this site but its things like this that make me question their integrity. And where is an AMD APU for comparison?!? Reply
  • Wixman666 - Monday, June 16, 2014 - link

    Have you guys all forgotten the absolutely miniscule performance differences, in the big picture, between RAM speeds? The higher speed memory just has higher and higher latency, ultimately producing nearly no net gains, and sometimes resulting in WORSE performance. There is a huge article here somewhere that supports that in the memory section. LATENCY has a massive impact on the performance! Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now