Performance Metrics - II

In this section, we mainly look at benchmark modes in programs used on a day-to-day basis, i.e, application performance and not synthetic workloads.

x264 Benchmark

First off, we have some video encoding benchmarks courtesy of x264 HD Benchmark v5.0. This is simply a test of CPU performance. The Core m3-6Y30 in the Compute Stick form factor is given a bit of a challenge by the Core i5-4210Y in the Zotac ZBOX CI540 nano, a NUC-form factor machine.

Video Encoding - x264 5.0 - Pass 1

Video Encoding - x264 5.0 - Pass 2

7-Zip

7-Zip is a very effective and efficient compression program, often beating out OpenCL accelerated commercial programs in benchmarks even while using just the CPU power. 7-Zip has a benchmarking program that provides tons of details regarding the underlying CPU's efficiency. In this subsection, we are interested in the compression and decompression MIPS ratings when utilizing all the available threads.

In these multi-threaded benchmarks, the quad-core processors (4C/4T) are able to score better than the 2C/4T configuration of the Core m3-6Y30.

7-Zip LZMA Compression Benchmark

7-Zip LZMA Decompression Benchmark

TrueCrypt

As businesses (and even home consumers) become more security conscious, the importance of encryption can't be overstated. The Core m3-6Y30 supports the AES-NI instruction for accelerating the encryption and decryption processes. TrueCrypt, a popular open-source disk encryption program can take advantage of the AES-NI capabilities. The TrueCrypt internal benchmark provides some interesting cryptography-related numbers to ponder. In the graph below, we can get an idea of how fast a TrueCrypt volume would behave in the Intel Core m3-6Y30 Compute Stick and how it would compare with other select PCs. This is a purely CPU feature / clock speed based test.

TrueCrypt Benchmark

Agisoft Photoscan

Agisoft PhotoScan is a commercial program that converts 2D images into 3D point maps, meshes and textures. The program designers sent us a command line version in order to evaluate the efficiency of various systems that go under our review scanner. The command line version has two benchmark modes, one using the CPU and the other using both the CPU and GPU (via OpenCL). The benchmark takes around 50 photographs and does four stages of computation:

  • Stage 1: Align Photographs
  • Stage 2: Build Point Cloud (capable of OpenCL acceleration)
  • Stage 3: Build Mesh
  • Stage 4: Build Textures

We record the time taken for each stage. Since various elements of the software are single threaded, others multithreaded, and some use GPUs, it is interesting to record the effects of CPU generations, speeds, number of cores, DRAM parameters and the GPU using this software.

Agisoft PhotoScan Benchmark - Stage 1

Agisoft PhotoScan Benchmark - Stage 2

Agisoft PhotoScan Benchmark - Stage 3

Agisoft PhotoScan Benchmark - Stage 4

Dolphin Emulator

Wrapping up our application benchmark numbers is the Dolphin Emulator benchmark mode results. This is again a test of the CPU capabilities, and the pure single-threaed performance advantage of the Core m3-6Y30 is evident here.

Dolphin Emulator Benchmark

Performance Metrics - I Networking and Storage Performance
POST A COMMENT

104 Comments

View All Comments

  • Murloc - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    irrelevant, video cards are one of the product categories that generate the most hype, if the reviewer isn't able to deliver anymore he could ship the card to somebody else.

    Still, if people come visit the site regardless of timely delivery of video card reviews, then it's not worth the effort.
    Reply
  • prisonerX - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    They cancelled it due to the childish whining. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    It'll be a little bit longer, but it is coming.

    I have no excuses (none that would interest you guys, at least). But it is still a critical article, and one I intend to deliver soon.

    In the meantime I have a request: could you guys please stop asking reviewers who aren't me where the 1080 review is? This is entirely my own doing, and harassing them isn't going to make it appear any sooner. In the meantime it's distracting from articles such as these, where the comments are supposed to be about the product.
    Reply
  • Agent Smith - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    Ryan, will your upcoming reviews of both the 1080 and 480 GPU's include their encode and decode capabilities?

    If so, will they include HVEC results?

    Thanks!
    Reply
  • Agent Smith - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    Typo: meant HEVC (H.265) Reply
  • zlandar - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    I've been wondering the same thing. There have been multiple articles on niche products which the vast majority of people could care less about yet a major video card launch goes unnoticed. Reply
  • Vorl - Tuesday, June 28, 2016 - link

    Yeah, sadly, this has been going on for a while...

    There never was a review of the gtx 960, just a launch announcement. When I commented about it earlier this year I was told "it's coming" and here we are, waiting for the 1080 series...

    I don't know what is happening with the video card reviews, but they sure aren't what they used to be or even remotely timely.

    Anandtech used to release them the day of launch with full reviews, now it's weeks/months late, and sometimes never.
    Reply
  • Michael Bay - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    Well, maybe AT is just not a GPU site anymore. Reply
  • Furunomoe - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    Nowadays, I only visit AnandTech to read about interesting gadgets. I have TPU for all of my PC hardware needs now. Reply
  • more-or-less - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    It will come when it will come!
    They are short-stuffed, and that's obvious. Also the level of technical detail require time to write.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now