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 Intel NUC6i5SYK. The NUC supports both M.2 SATA SSDs and M.2 PCIe SSDs (2242 / 2280). NVMe is also supported and provides the best possible performance. One of the evaluation options is a repetition of our strenuous SSD review tests on the drive 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.

Note that the problems we encountered with PCMark 8 and NVMe SSDs in a previous NUC review has been fixed now (by an update to PCMark 8). The benchmark now brings the full performance of the NVMe SSD to the forefront, yielding leading numbers in both the storage bench score as well as bandwidth. Unlike Broadwell-U, the M.2 SSD can interface with the Skylake package using a PCIe 3.0 x4 link (instead of PCIe 2.0 x4).

Futuremark PCMark 8 Storage Bench - Score

Futuremark PCMark 8 Storage Bench - Bandwidth

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.

The WLAN functionality in the NUC6i5SYK is handled by the Intel AC8260 2x2 802.11ac chipset. While the number of spatial streams supported is the same as the AC7265 used in the Broadwell NUCs, the AC8260 integrates Bluetooth 4.2 (compared to Bluetooth 4.0 in the AC7265).

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)

The benchmark numbers in both cases point to a retrogression in performance compared to the previous-generation AC7265 used in the Intel NUC5i5RYK and NUC5i7RYH. In addition, we ran into a strange issue with the WLAN component. Occasionally after startup, the Wi-Fi adapter wouldn't see any 5 GHz networks to connect to. Repeated restarts helped in resolving the problem. Apparently, we are not alone in noticing this behavior. Intel has also been able to recreate the problem at their end and efforts are on to resolve it.

Performance Metrics - II HTPC Credentials
Comments Locked

95 Comments

View All Comments

  • twotwotwo - Sunday, March 13, 2016 - link

    Coincidentally, I just got one of this model set up yesterday.

    In line with what the review says, it subjectively feels about as fast as the Broadwell i7 I use for work. I expected more difference just eyeballing the specs (though the i5's turbo clock is still 2.8GHz).

    It's fun that you can now get a pretty decent computer, with perks like a PCIe SSD or lots of RAM, in a case no larger than some sandwiches I've eaten.

    Setup wasn't fun. I had to use legacy boot to start Ubuntu off a Samsung NVMe drive, which was odd because BIOS could browse the EFI partition, Secure Boot was off, it could UEFI-boot off the SD card, etc. Lots of annoying trial and error to find the right config to get it booting, too.

    In Ubuntu, I needed to use Intel's Linux graphics stack installer from 01.org to fix jerky video. Other than that hardware has worked out of the box.
  • soryuuha - Monday, March 14, 2016 - link

    How does this box handle

    * H264 Hi10p
    * HEVC
    * HEVC Main 10
  • milkod2001 - Monday, March 14, 2016 - link

    I still don't get why would anyone wanted to get NUC over laptop with screen,keyboard and OS already there.

    I can understand a few nerds who have time and knowledge to make the best of it but what about the average customers. Do NUCs actually sell well at all?
  • damianrobertjones - Monday, March 14, 2016 - link

    Yes. They also look quite nice next to a large television in a front room.

    Also, for a company like the one here, buying Nucs seems like a reasonable choice.
  • Drazick - Monday, March 14, 2016 - link

    Ganesh,
    Does Intel have any plans giving us GT3e in higher TDP configurations?
    When I say higher I mean 90 Watt.

    Even better to see it in the Extreme Edition (6829K + GT3e).
  • Shadowmaster625 - Tuesday, March 15, 2016 - link

    $700 and it bricks when you update the BIOS? Where do I sign up?
  • Brian_R170 - Tuesday, March 15, 2016 - link

    "It all started with the first Intel NUC (Next Unit of Computing) based on a Sandy Bridge processor."

    Actually, the first NUCs were DC3217IYE (Ice Canyon) and DC3217BY (Box Canyon) and they both had an Ivy Bridge i3. The first (an only) NUC with a Sandy Bridge CPU was the DCCP847DYE (Deep Canyon) that came a few months later.
  • NextGen_Gamer - Tuesday, March 15, 2016 - link

    I bought and configured one of these just a few weeks ago, and absolutely love it. I bought the NUCi5SYK, the same 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-2400 kit as reviewed here, and a 512GB Samsung 950 Pro. It is amazing - I have had no glitches, freezes, or any issues so far. Of course, my unit started with the 33 BIOS as well. I built one of these for my office at work, and have two curved Samsung 23" 1080p monitors hooked up to it (one through the HDMI, one through a mDP-to-HDMI adapter). I would highly recommend it :)
  • bogda - Wednesday, March 16, 2016 - link

    NUC is not really intended for gaming or 3D rendering but if we test the GPU why do we get 3D Mark results instead of real game benchmarks?
  • jacksonjacksona - Thursday, March 17, 2016 - link

    ( www).(ajkobeshoes).(com )
    christian louboutin

    jordan shoes $60-

    handbag
    AF tank woman
    puma slipper woman
    =====
    ( www).(ajkobeshoes).(com )

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now