Performance Metrics - I

The Intel Core m3-6Y30 Compute Stick was evaluated using our standard test suite for low power desktops / industrial PCs. Not all benchmarks were processed on all the machines due to updates in our testing procedures. Therefore, the list of PCs in each graph might not be the same. In the first section, we will be looking at SYSmark 2014, as well as some of the Futuremark benchmarks.

BAPCo SYSmark 2014

BAPCo's SYSmark 2014 is an application-based benchmark that uses real-world applications to replay usage patterns of business users in the areas of office productivity, media creation and data/financial analysis. Scores are meant to be compared against a reference desktop (HP ProDesk 600 G1 with a Core i3-4130, 4GB RAM and a 500GB hard drive) that scores 1000 in each of the scenarios. A score of, say, 2000, would imply that the system under test is twice as fast as the reference system.

Since SYSmark 2014 was not processed on any of of the PCs in our comparison list, we present the scores obtained in the three iterations of the benchmark above. Obviously, a 7.5W TDP Skylake Core M is no match for a 54W Haswell Core i3. However, it still manages to delivery more than 70% of its performance for business workloads.

Futuremark PCMark 8

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. These scores are heavily influenced by the CPU in the system. Most of the PCs in our comparison list are equipped with anaemic Atom processors, and the Core m3-6Y30 manages to easily better them in performance despite the form factor limitation.

Futuremark PCMark 8 - Home OpenCL

Futuremark PCMark 8 - Creative OpenCL

Futuremark PCMark 8 - Work OpenCL

Miscellaneous Futuremark Benchmarks

Futuremark PCMark 7 - PCMark Suite Score

Futuremark 3DMark 11 - Extreme Score

Futuremark 3DMark 11 - Entry Score

Futuremark 3DMark 2013 - Ice Storm Score

Futuremark 3DMark 2013 - Cloud Gate Score

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 - Single Thread

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R15 - Multiple Threads

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R15 - OpenGL

Introduction and Setup Impressions Performance Metrics - II
POST A COMMENT

104 Comments

View All Comments

  • andrewaggb - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    pretty much sums it up. The atoms are just not fast enough, I have a couple quad core atom devices and it's just slightly too slow. I have a core-m 5th gen laptop and it's usable. I still think it's actually just bordering on too slow, but for the most part I'm ok with it. I certainly wouldn't want anything slower than that. Reply
  • woggs - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    "keep it off till needed"

    Till means to turn over dirt.

    "Drivers and BIOS updates are available for download [ ] on Intel's website."

    Is there supposed to be a link in there?
    Reply
  • ganeshts - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    Thanks for the note. I have fixed the download link.

    As for 'till', the definition you provided is just one of the four possible meanings. Please refer: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/am...
    Reply
  • woggs - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    Heh... Oxford has given up... Reply
  • watzupken - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    This would have been a great compact HTPC for its size. However, I think it is very overpriced for its performance to be honest. Reply
  • fanofanand - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    So close. The waiting game will continue, I just want a device that can be used for streaming and surfing the web, with a few super basic (low settings) games my kids can play. I want that but at $200 or less. My wife's laptop would beat the crap out of this thing (I know, different form factor) for 25% less $. Intel needs a seismic shift in strategy, the days of 70%+ margins are over. Reply
  • tipoo - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link


    I'm seeing a common trend with the Skull Candy NUC. The hardware is interesting enough for me to want to toy around with, but the pricing just pushes them over the interest range. It looks like Intel is making these to try to push their margins up rather than try to gain significant self-built hardware marketshare.

    Actually, if partners keep screwing the pooch, they should pull a Surface (not the concept, but the idea of vertical integration) and make some great laptops and desktops.
    Reply
  • jwcalla - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    Just out of curiosity... are any of the reviews here at AT paid for by the product's company? Reply
  • jihe - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    The Apple ones. Then again, given the fanboism of AT, they probably paid Apple double to review their products. Reply
  • ganeshts - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    Nope. No review on AT has ever been paid for by anybody. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now