GPU Performance: Synthetic Benchmarks

Discrete GPUs are included in systems for a variety of purposes. The most common scenario is one in which the end user requires better gaming performance than what an integrated GPU can provide. The other reason could be workstation performance. Yet another possibility is a system equipped with a CPU that doesn't support any graphics output. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is a good fit in the third scenario. It operates well below the 75W limit imposed by the PCIe slot's power delivery mechanism. It provides two display outputs capable of driving 8K displays, if required. As per marketing claims, it provides good enough 1080p gaming performance. GPU performance evaluation typically involved gaming workloads, and for select PCs, GPU compute. Prior to that, a look at the capabilities of the GPU installed in the DeskMeet B660 is warranted.

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is a Navi 24 GPU built in the TSMC 6nm process. The ASRock Challenger ITX version configures it with a 4-lane PCIe 4.0 interface and 4GB of GDDR6 VRAM. The card is very weak in terms of multimedia capabilities, with a limited set of codecs support for hardware decoding and no VCE (encoding) support. Overall, it is a decent card to add a display output to an otherwise bare system. However, we decided to evaluate the gaming performance also, in order to gauge ASRock's claims of it being suitable for 1080p gaming. Additional comparison numbers with integrated GPUs can be obtained in the graphs from our ASRock NUC BOX-1260P and ASRock 4x4 BOX-5800U review here.

GFXBench

The DirectX 12-based GFXBench tests from Kishonti are cross-platform, and available all the way down to smartphones. As such, they are not very taxing for discrete GPUs and modern integrated GPUs. We processed the offscreen versions of the 'Aztec Ruins' benchmark.

GFXBench 5.0: Aztec Ruins Normal 1080p Offscreen

GFXBench 5.0: Aztec Ruins High 1440p Offscreen

The raw numbers are very good, but are well behind the other systems in the mix. Comparison with the best integrated GPUs in UCFF systems from Intel and AMD show these numbers to be better by a factor of more than 2.5 - commensurate with the delta in the power allocation for the GPU.

UL 3DMark

Four different workload sets were processed in 3DMark - Fire Strike, Time Spy, Night Raid, and Wild Life.

3DMark Fire Strike

The Fire Strike benchmark has three workloads. The base version is meant for high-performance gaming PCs. It uses DirectX 11 (feature level 11) to render frames at 1920 x 1080. The Extreme version targets 1440p gaming requirements, while the Ultra version targets 4K gaming system, and renders at 3840 x 2160. The graph below presents the overall score for the Fire Strike Extreme and Fire Strike Ultra benchmark across all the systems that are being compared.

UL 3DMark - Fire Strike Workloads

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 Wild Life

The Wild Life workload was initially introduced as a cross-platform GPU benchmark in 2020. It renders at a 2560 x 1440 resolution using Vulkan 1.1 APIs on Windows. It is a relatively short-running test, reflective of mobile GPU usage. In mid-2021, UL released the Wild Life Extreme workload that was a more demanding version that renders at 3840 x 2160 and runs for a much longer duration reflective of typical desktop gaming usage.

UL 3DMark - Wild Life Workloads

All of the above workloads are for systems intended for gaming at 1440p or higher resolutions, but we do get an idea of the relative performance numbers (which are as per expectations).

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 Night Raid Score

All the scores in the above benchmarks are significantly better than the ones that the best integrated GPU can provide (by a factor of around 2.5x consistently). The RX 6400 is indeed a good upgrade to an integrated GPU for 3D performance, and a good low-power display-output enabling card for iGPU-less systems like our DeskMeet B660 configuration.

3DMark Port Royal

UL introduced the Port Royal ray-tracing benchmark as a DLC for 3DMark in early 2019. The scores serve as an indicator of how the system handles ray-tracing effects in real-time.

UL 3DMark Port Royal Score

Despite being a low-end card, the RX 6400 does include hardware ray-tracing and completed the Port Royal benchmark successfully. The score, though, is nothing to write home about.

System Performance: Miscellaneous Workloads Gaming Performance
Comments Locked

27 Comments

View All Comments

  • lopri - Monday, January 23, 2023 - link

    Very thorough and informative. This review is a breadth of fresh air in a sea of toxic commercials masquerading as reviews (of wildly overpriced goods) Thank you.
  • Slash3 - Monday, January 23, 2023 - link

    "The CPU package itself doesn't go beyond 80C - a testament to the effectiveness of the Silverstone Hydrogon H90 ARGB cooler."

    Well, it's also a direct result of running the CPU at a hard 65W PL1/PL2, judging by the flat lines in the adjacent power consumption chart.

    Stock PL1 for the 12700F is 65W, with PL2 at 180W, so it looks like the CPU would have been running at base power (and clocks?) for the tests. This would explain lower than expected results in easy to compare tests, such as Cinebench R23 MT. Stock power limits should produce a score of ~19k, with 16k being in line with a 65W limit, as shown in a few reviews elsewhere (TechSpot's 12700+B660 article, for example).

    Was this intentional? The test notes show a stated PL1 of 65W and PL2 of 126W, which is a specific power limitation of certain low end ASRock boards (such as the B660M-HDV and likely including this one as well), but it seems like the CPU is *immediately* dipping to 65W, rather than dropping down from 126W after a ~28 second Tau period. Heck, it doesn't even seem to have a one second Tau period.

    It's not a massive game-changer, but being able to boost a bit higher with an actual 126W PL2 may give it a little bit more grunt in some MT tests. Might be worth double checking, even if it's just for one extra Cinebench R23 MT 10-minute test to get a more accurate power/frequency chart.

    Great review, though! These are capable little cubes.
  • ganeshts - Monday, January 23, 2023 - link

    The BIOS options are left at default as intended by ASRock. It is likely that ASRock believes the case and motherboard power delivery design can only accommodate a PL2 of 126W. PL2 duration was similar to what I have observed in other systems.

    The cooling situation in the system is a bit challenging. The CPU fan exhausts directly on to the PSU - so, the airflow is not entirely unobstructed. With a 8L chassis volume, and considering that ASRock has gone in for a standard ATX PSU to keep costs low, I am guessing this is the best they could do. The cooling solution in the NUC Extreme models is much more complicated and effective - but that comes with a significant price premium.
  • boozed - Monday, January 23, 2023 - link

    I've always wanted some deskmeat
  • thestryker - Monday, January 23, 2023 - link

    Seems like they tried to make this a bit too small where it has all of the negatives of the first NUC Extreme, but manages to be slightly larger. It certainly is cheaper, but it really needs to either be smaller and forego dGPU or longer and support more.
  • meacupla - Tuesday, January 24, 2023 - link

    All things considered, the size is pretty good, actually. It's a bit over 8L in size, which is on the smaller size for mITX cases Adding room for a larger GPU would easily bring it over 12L. A similar case that is one size longer is the Silverstone SG13. It accepts longer 2-slot GPUs, but powerful GPUs these days are touting 3 slot designs.

    I think the design choice of short 2-slot GPU is good, although I think they could have made the overall size smaller by using a SFX PSU.
  • nandnandnand - Monday, January 23, 2023 - link

    I would rather go smaller. Now we can have 96 GB of RAM with 2 DIMM slots.
  • Mr.Vegas - Thursday, January 26, 2023 - link

    Op, Is there a 8 pin PCIe power connector on the PSU? there is no info about which cand how many connectors the PSU has, i have 3060 that uses single 8 pin conenctor
  • Mr.Vegas - Thursday, January 26, 2023 - link

    P.S. Is there any space to glue [double sided tape] a 2.5inch SSD if i use a Dual Slot GPU?
    Like on the side of the PSU maybe?
  • ganeshts - Friday, January 27, 2023 - link

    I doubt it, and wouldn't recommend even if it were to be possible.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now