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 NUC6i7KYK (Skull Canyon). On the storage side, 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

The storage score (primary result) shows that there is not much to gain by going from the SM951 in the NUC6i5SYK to the 950 PRO in the NUC6i7KYK. It shows that workloads are more user-input and CPU-bound, rather than storage-bound. On the other hand, the storage bandwidth number (secondary result) shows a significant jump. Readers can refer to our explanation of how these numbers are calculated by PCMark 8. The secondary result is the total amount of data transferred (both reads and writes) divided by the storage I/O busy time (i.e, time duration during which the number of pending I/O operations was at least 1). The secondary result is a very important metric when idle time compression is involved, but it doesn't matter as much as the primary result when it comes to application responsiveness (as the workload might be CPU-bound, rather than storage-bound). In any case, the above result shows that a powerful CPU can drive up the secondary result very high.

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 (Zotac ID89-Plus) 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)

The antenna placement and the system design ensure that the Intel 802.11ac AC8260 WLAN subsystem performs exceptionally well in our Wi-Fi testing and comes out at the top of the charts in both TCP and UDP tests.

Gaming Benchmarks HTPC Credentials
Comments Locked

133 Comments

View All Comments

  • fanofanand - Monday, May 23, 2016 - link

    So in other words, another 20 mm gives the customer a 50% haircut on price. Yup, more evidence this is a product in search of high margins and little else.
  • jwcalla - Monday, May 23, 2016 - link

    You have to understand that Intel thinks its customers turn on their faucets and liquid gold comes pouring out.
  • Shadowmaster625 - Monday, May 23, 2016 - link

    So its not even as fast as an ancient R9 270M despite being two nodes ahead.... and the power advantage is only 30%. Intel has a problem it seems.
  • ganeshts - Monday, May 23, 2016 - link

    Did you consider the power budget?
  • extide - Monday, May 23, 2016 - link

    Are you kidding? That is actually a pretty damn good achievement, I mean that uses a Cape Verde ASIC, and has about 1TFLOP of compute power, (640 shaders @ ~750 Mhz)

    The Iris Pro 580 has 576 FP32 cores (72 EU * 8) and runs about 1Ghz, so has a bit over 1.1TFLOP compute -- so really pretty similar in terms of compute horsepower. It seems like it is performing right where it should based on it's hardware config.
  • fanofanand - Monday, May 23, 2016 - link

    Well, looks like I will be waiting yet another generation. Still can't game on 1080p. I like the storage and Wi-Fi numbers, and I can picture this doing fairly well in some office environments, but are there that many people who are building home PC's (user still has to add RAM etc.) and who will pay that kind of a premium for a device that is somewhat limited in it's use case? I can't speak for anyone else of course, but there is no way my employer would fork out $1k for this, not when they can spend $400 on a cheap business laptop that takes up a similar amount of space in the office but also offers them the ability to extract additional work from me over the weekend. I love the idea, I just don't think the hardware is there yet.
  • Taracta - Monday, May 23, 2016 - link

    How is Alpine Ridge going to get USB 3.1 if it is not off the PCH?
  • ganeshts - Monday, May 23, 2016 - link

    Alpine Ridge has a USB 3.1 host controller integrated along with the Thunderbolt controller. Please look into our Thunderbolt 3 hands-on coverage here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10248/thunderbolt-3-... : Note the presence of the xHCI controller in the Alpine Ridge block diagram towards the middle of the linked page.
  • tipoo - Monday, May 23, 2016 - link

    This makes me wish Intel offered GT4e with a cheaper dual, then it could compete with boxes like the Alienware Alpha on price/value.
  • tipoo - Monday, May 23, 2016 - link

    Does this support free sync?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now