Gemini Lake SFF PC Showdown: Intel's June Canyon (NUC7PJYH) and ECS's LIVA Z2 Reviewed
by Ganesh T S on December 20, 2018 8:00 AM ESTUL Benchmarks - PCMark and 3DMark
This section deals with a selection of the UL Futuremark benchmarks - PCMark 10, PCMark 8, and 3DMark. While the first two evaluate the system as a whole, 3DMark focuses on the graphics capabilities.
PCMark 10
UL's PCMark 10 evaluates computing systems for various usage scenarios (generic / essential tasks such as web browsing and starting up applications, productivity tasks such as editing spreadsheets and documents, gaming, and digital content creation). We benchmarked select PCs with the PCMark 10 Extended profile and recorded the scores for various scenarios. These scores are heavily influenced by the CPU and GPU in the system, though the RAM and storage device also play a part. The power plan was set to Balanced for all the PCs while processing the PCMark 10 benchmark.
Other than the gaming scenario, the passively-cooled ECS LIVA Z2 turns out to be better than the Arches Canyon NUC. The June Canyon NUC comes out on by a huge margin.
PCMark 8
We continue to present PCMark 8 benchmark results (as those have more comparison points) while our PCMark 10 scores database for systems grows in size. 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. Despite its passive cooling, the ECS LIVA Z2 is a step ahead of the Arches Canyon NUC in all the workloads.
3DMark
UL's 3DMark comes with a diverse set of graphics workloads that target different Direct3D feature levels. Correspondingly, the rendering resolutions are also different. We use 3DMark 2.4.4264 to get an idea of the graphics capabilities of the system. In this section, we take a look at the performance of the Gemini Lake UCFF PCs across the different 3DMark workloads.
3DMark Ice Storm
This workload has three levels of varying complexity - the vanilla Ice Storm, Ice Storm Unlimited, and Ice Storm Extreme. It is a cross-platform benchmark (which means that the scores can be compared across different tablets and smartphones as well). All three use DirectX 11 (feature level 9) / OpenGL ES 2.0. While the Extreme renders at 1920 x 1080, the other two render at 1280 x 720. The graphs below present the various Ice Storm worloads' numbers for different systems that we have evaluated.
| UL 3DMark - Ice Storm Workloads | |||
3DMark Cloud Gate
The Cloud Gate workload is meant for notebooks and typical home PCs, and uses DirectX 11 (feature level 10) to render frames at 1280 x 720. The graph below presents the overall score for the workload across all the systems that are being compared.
3DMark Sky Diver
The Sky Diver workload is meant for gaming notebooks and mid-range PCs, and uses DirectX 11 (feature level 11) to render frames at 1920 x 1080. The graph below presents the overall score for the workload across all the systems that are being compared.
3DMark Fire Strike Extreme
The Fire Strike benchmark has three workloads. The base version is meant for high-performance gaming PCs. Similar to Sky Diver, it uses DirectX 11 (feature level 11) to render frames at 1920 x 1080. The Ultra version targets 4K gaming system, and renders at 3840 x 2160. However, we only deal with the Extreme version in our benchmarking - It renders at 2560 x 1440, and targets multi-GPU systems and overclocked PCs. The graph below presents the overall score for the Fire Strike Extreme benchmark across all the systems that are being compared.
3DMark Time Spy
The Time Spy workload has two levels with different complexities. Both use DirectX 12 (feature level 11). However, the plain version targets high-performance gaming PCs with a 2560 x 1440 render resolution, while the Extreme version renders at 3840 x 2160 resolution. The graphs below present both numbers for all the systems that are being compared in this review.
| UL 3DMark - Time Spy Workloads | |||
3DMark Night Raid
The Night Raid workload is a DirectX 12 benchmark test. It is less demanding than Time Spy, and is optimized for integrated graphics. The graph below presents the overall score in this workload for different system configurations.
In terms of GPU performance, being actively cooled helps the Arches Canyon NUC come in second place for almost all relevant cases
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
59 Comments
View All Comments
mode_13h - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
Maybe it's still dual-channel, but the speed drops due to difficulty driving the load. In the past, certain Intel CPUs would do things like that.craxity - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
@LMonty: The NUC works in dual-channel mode (tested 2x16GB, 2x8GB and 2x4GB), but the memory performance is simply low.I'm using a NUC7PJYH since June and already discussed the topic in Intel's forum.
LMonty - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
@craxity thank you for this info. Could you elaborate pls. on low memory performance? Wouldn't the memory bandwidth be dependent on the RAM speed (e.g. DDR4 2400 with 64-bit controller will result in 2400x8 = 19.2 GB/s single channel, 38.4 GB/s dual channel)?denywinarto - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
Any words on legacy boot ? I had to sell j4105 that i bought because it lacks legacy bootspeculatrix - Monday, December 31, 2018 - link
I'm not trying to be difficult but UEFI works well on modern Intel motherboards. It's all the crappy older systems, or cheap Chinese tablets, with crappy UEFI implementations that give UEFI a bad name.mode_13h - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
Thanks for this, but I sure wish you'd have included an i3 NUC (or whatever's the next step up with a performance-optimized core) and like a Pentium Gold G5400 desktop CPU.I'm always curious to know what one is leaving on the table by opting for Intel's power/cost-optimized product line (AKA its Atom-lineage processors).
GreenReaper - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
The LIVA Z2 looks to be underperforming, but perhaps not once you consider it's over 40% cheaper, includes an OS, and uses half the power. If you need more you could throw another stick of RAM in. Anything more and I suspect you'd want to step up to a full-fat CPU anyway.eastcoast_pete - Sunday, December 23, 2018 - link
I must say that I am disappointed with both these two "HTPC"s and the review. The review is cookie-cutter type and only just okay if what one want to know are the benchmark numbers shown, but is deficient in key areas. The biggest missing piece is: Are these Home Theater (!) PCs any good for home theater use? The answer (probably not) is buried in the last section in a single sentence: "The only disappointing aspect from a HTPC viewpoint is that HDR is not supported". That's it? In 2018/2019?@Ganesh: please expand on what these NUC-type units can and cannot do when it comes to playing media, and mention severe limitations like "no HDR" in the first paragraph or so! The missing information on these two "HTPC"s reviewed here include the HDMI standard that they feature and what that means (i.e. can they do UHD (4K), at how many frames/second, 8bit or 10bit color output etc.), can the CPU natively decode HEVC/VP9 etc. at what frame rate especially for UHD, how is the playback quality, is there tearing or stuttering etc. An actual test or two of decoding/playback capabilities might be important in an HTPC (!) review, don't you think? Lastly, information on the audio out (channels, connectivity, distortion..?) is similarly MIA.
For me, the summary for the two NUCs or NUCalikes reviewed here is: Nice, compact mini-computers for light computing and office use, but not suitable for use as a home theater PC as we approach 2019. As of now, UHD with HDR comes standard with essentially all new TVs, including almost all entry-level models (try to find a model year 2018/2019 TV set without those). A new HTPC that cannot even utilize those minimum capabilities is obsolete the moment it's purchased.
eastcoast_pete - Sunday, December 23, 2018 - link
@Ganesh To clarify: I know you didn't call them HTPCs in the title, but that is what many (most?) users are or will be considering these NUCs and NUCalikes for. Almost anybody I know bought their NUC for use as an HTPC, and that is where these Gemini Lake NUCs fall flat. It can get frustrating to have to tell people over and over "Yes, this NUC is cheaper. No, it will not give you the HTPC experience you're looking for". So, even if you haven't run the media playback tests on these and can't add the information, a stronger "buyer beware" and what to consider instead is in order. Intel made sure that Gemini Lake systems cannot provide the multimedia experience that a 2018/2019 HTPC should provide; for that, one has to buy a core-based NUC.silverblue - Sunday, December 23, 2018 - link
To be fair, I can't remember the last time I saw HTPC benchmarks, maybe it was back during the Kaveri era.