UL Benchmarks - PCMark, 3DMark, and VRMark

This section deals with a selection of the UL Futuremark benchmarks - PCMark 10, PCMark 8, 3DMark, and VRMark. While the first two evaluate the system as a whole, 3DMark and VRMark focus 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.

Futuremark PCMark 10 - Essentials

Futuremark PCMark 10 - Productivity

Futuremark PCMark 10 - Gaming

Futuremark PCMark 10 - Digital Content Creation

Futuremark PCMark 10 - Extended

The Essentials and the Productivity scores reflect what was observed in the BAPCo SYSmark 2018 benchmarks. The higher single-threaded performance in the Core i3-8100 helps it edge ahead of the Ryzen 5 2400G. However, the gaming workload is a huge win for the DeskMini A300. The help from the multi-threaded performance also helps the system in the Digital Content Creation workload. Overall, we see the DeskMini A300 ending up with the best overall score amongst the systems without a discrete GPU.

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.

Futuremark PCMark 8 - Home OpenCL

Futuremark PCMark 8 - Creative OpenCL

Futuremark PCMark 8 - Work OpenCL

These scores are heavily influenced by the CPU in the system, and don't have a reliance on the gaming prowess to help the DeskMini A300 to get ahead. As a result, we see that the relative ordering is similar to what was observed in the BAPCo SYSmark 2018 benchmark.

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 ASRock DeskMini A300 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 workload numbers for different systems that we have evaluated. Except for the Physics workload (CPU-reliant), the DeskMini A300 only lags behind the Hades Canyon NUC.

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. Interestingly, the DeskMini A300 only performs as well as the DeskMini 310 for this low-complexity workload.

UL 3DMark Cloud Gate Score

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. The DeskMini A300 again wins easily and turns out to be better than all other systems without a discrete GPU.

UL 3DMark Sky Diver Score

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. The DeskMini A300 is again the best system with an integrated GPU for this workload.

UL 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme Score

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. As expected, the DeskMini A300 is again on top (not considering systems with a discrete GPU).

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.

UL 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme Score

VRMark

The DeskMini A300 is not a VR-ready PC by any stretch of imagination. However, it is still relevant to look at how the system performs for VR workloads. The VRMark Professional Edition v1.2.1701 comes with three rooms. Each room can be run either in desktop or HMD mode, with varying minimum requirements for the same workload. The benchmark results include the average FPS achieved, and a score based on the FPS. A pass or fail indicator is also provided based on whether the average FPS exceeds the required FPS. In this section, we take a look at the performance of the ASRock DeskMini A300 on a comparative basis across the three workloads in desktop mode.

VRMark Orange Room

The Orange Room is meant to test the effectiveness of a system for handling the requirements of the HTC Vive and the Oculus Rift. The recommended hardware for both VR HMDs should be able to easily achieve the desired target FPS (88.9 fps). However, in the desktop mode, the target performance is 109 fps without any frame drops. Systems benching with an average FPS lesser than that are deemed to have failed the VRMark Orange Room benchmark. The graphs below present the average FPS and score for the different systems being considered today. 

UL VRMark - Orange Room

VRMark Cyan Room

The Cyan Room sits between the Orange and Blue rooms in complexity. It is a DirectX 12 benchmark. Similar to the Orange room, the target metrics are 88.9 fps on HMDs and 109 fps on the desktop monitor. The graphs below present the average FPS and score for the different systems being considered today.

UL VRMark - Cyan Room

VRMark Blue Room

The Blue Room is the most demanding of the three workloads. At the time of introduction of VRMark in October 2016, no publicly available system running as sold was able to pass the test. The performance of a system in this benchmark is an indicator of its VR-readiness for future generation of HMDs. Similar to the other workloads, the passing performance metrics are 88.9 fps on HMDs and 109 fps on desktop monitors. The complexity of the workload is due to the higher resolution (5012 x 2880) and additional geometry making it necessary to increase the number of Direct3D API calls. The graphs below present the average FPS and score for the different systems being considered today.

UL VRMark - Blue Room

The CPU power also plays a role in the numbers for these complex workloads. So, we see that the DeskMini A300 doesn't enjoy as clear a lead as it did in the 3DMark workloads.

BAPCo SYSmark 2018 Miscellaneous Performance Metrics
Comments Locked

88 Comments

View All Comments

  • BigMamaInHouse - Friday, April 26, 2019 - link

    Comparing 2400G with Real iGPU vs $431 i7-8559U - I'd say it performs Great!.
  • Irata - Friday, April 26, 2019 - link

    To be more specific, on the "productivity benchmark", the A300 has 89% of the A310's score with 86% of its power consumption, so for office type tasks, it is actually a bit more efficient.
  • ganeshts - Friday, April 26, 2019 - link

    Ah, the pitfalls of saying ProdA scores X% of ProdB in metric M at Y% in metric N, when M and N are not linearly correlated!

    Extending it the same way, if I were to build the DeskMini 310 system with the same original review components at the current prices, I am going to splurge : 162 (DeskMini 310 board with Wi-Fi compared to DeskMini A300 without Wi-Fi) + 139 (Core i3-8100) + 76 (DDR4-2400 2x8GB SODIMM) + 78 (PCIe 3.0 x4 240GB NVMe SSD - Corsair Force MP510) = $455 ; Let me look up the table for the DeskMini A300 cost without Wi-Fi - tada, it is $465 - oh oh oh!!!! Does the lower upfront cost for the AMD system (as claimed in the article in the same BAPCo section) evaporate into thin air? No!

    The reason is that when you are looking at SYSmark 2018 scores and SYSmark 2018 energy consumption numbers, you compare against systems that score approximately the same in those particular metrics.

    For the overall SYSmark 2018 scores, the DeskMini A300 is approximately the same as the Baby Canyon NUC - then, let us look at the energy consumption numbers for those two - the Baby Canyon consumes lesser energy.

    For the energy consumption numbers, the A300 and 310 are approximately in the same ball park - and there, you see the the 310 with a higher score.

    As for accusations that 'Intel CAN"T be shown in anything other than their best light' - take a chill pill - the PCMark 8 numbers back up SYSmark 2018. And, in the gaming section, we show that AMD outperforms the best that Intel can offer. As an impartial reviewer, my aim is to present the facts as-is and provide my analysis - if you come with pre-conceived notions that one product / vendor is better than the other, then, no amount of facts will convince you otherwise.
  • Irata - Friday, April 26, 2019 - link

    Replying to two different comments with one reply is a bit unfortunate as another poster made the "Intel can't be shown in..." comment.

    As for the price, if you check Newegg, the $150 A300 does include a Wifi kit.
    Looking at Newegg prices, I get the following:

    Desk Mini 300: $150
    Desk Mini 310: $168
    Ryzen 2400G: $150
    Core i3-8100: $142
    Memory: 100 (for the AMD system) vs. 80 (for the Intel based one)
    note: I had a hard time finding the exact memory so I was looking at Team Group memory with roughly the same specs
    WDS500G1B0C: $78
    Corsair FORCE MP500: $130

    When possible, in stock retail items with free shipping were chosen.

    This gives me a total of $ 478 for the Desk Mini 300 (including WiFi) and $ 520 for the 310. But calling the price even would be OK, considering how prices can fluctuate.
  • MASSAMKULABOX - Monday, December 9, 2019 - link

    AMd 150 + 150 +100 = $400
    INT $168 + 142 + 80 = $ 390 ... makes Intel cheaper , ..altho at this late date you can get the 2400g for $120 or less
  • Irata - Friday, April 26, 2019 - link

    Second reply as I wanted to keep things separately.

    As I stated below, the comment regarding Intel having to be shown in the best light was made by another poster. Why could (she) have said this ?

    For one, Intel is a client of your parent company Purch. They even mention this on their web site under "experience", stating "We’re focused on serving our action-oriented audience, as well as elevating the sponsor’s brand with that audience. We tailor the Native content that runs across our sites to better suit each environment, while keeping the integrity of the sponsor’s original content and brand."

    In addition, you are using Bapco Sysmark, a benchmark that - given this "organization's" history - leaves a rather bad taste.

    Now, I am not attacking your personal or journalistic integrity, however you must admit that the though AT may not be impartial does cross ones mind.

    And this does not have to be overly obvious shilling (as that would be counter productive), but can be small nuances or tones, stressing one thing while leaving out another.

    Do I have a pre-concieved notion of which one is better ?

    Besides seeing the Intel iGPU as inferior (with the exception of video encode / decode) not really, but I admit that I do not particularly like Intel as a company
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, April 26, 2019 - link

    "Now, I am not attacking your personal or journalistic integrity, however you must admit that the though AT may not be impartial does cross ones mind."

    Above all else, I think people vastly overestimate both how much work vendors are willing to put in, and how much they actually care about AnandTech. Being underhanded is a lot of work, especially for as small an audience as AnandTech has.

    To be sure, there is a significant editorial firewall up between ad sales and editorial. I honestly couldn't even tell you about our (former) publisher's comments, because none of that ever involved AnandTech. It was probably a campaign that ran on Tom's Guide or such.

    But regardless, we don't do shenanigans, and I won't stand for them. Vendors don't get to see articles early, we don't let vendors buy preferential treatment, and any sponsored content is going to be very clearly labeled as such. All AnandTech has its its honesty; so to sacrifice that would cost us everything.

    Which, to loop back to the discussion of Sysmark, Ganesh uses it as part of his mini-PC evaluations. It's a pretty useful benchmark, especially for the energy efficiency metrics. It works well for what Ganesh needs, and the workloads seem reasonable. At the same time we're well-aware of the controversy surrounding it, and we'd never trust a single benchmark for a review - and certainly not Sysmark. Which is why we run many benchmarks, to look at different workloads and get different points of view on performance.
  • Irata - Saturday, April 27, 2019 - link

    Thanks for the clarification Ryan. I still think that Sysmark is a no-go, but that's just my personal opinion.
  • Smell This - Friday, April 26, 2019 - link

    *As an impartial reviewer*
    _____________________

    I snorted.
  • BPB - Friday, April 26, 2019 - link

    I have one of these, and really like it. My problem is I bought this to replace an older NUC, and the older NUC runs Windows 8.1. I use the older NUC for WMC. Obviously the DeskMini doesn't support 8.1, but I thought I could get it to run 7. I can't. I noticed that ASRock has a utility for installing Windows 7 on AM4 motherboards, and I was given the impression that ASRock would update the DeskMini BIOS so I could install Windows 7. Then I found out the 2400G is only Windows 10 compatible. I don't know how I missed that when I did my research... So, my son gets nice little PC to replace his older one. This is a nice little setup, I just wish Windows 10 had something even 80 percent as good as WMC.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now