Intel's Haswell NUC: D54250WYK UCFF PC Review
by Ganesh T S on January 3, 2014 4:25 PM ESTPerformance Metrics
The NUC was evaluated using our standard test suite for low power desktops / industrial PCs. Note that some of the benchmarks are pretty recent (such as x264 v5.0 and 3D Mark 2013). Loaner samples haven't been tested with these new benchmarks. Therefore, the list of PCs in each graph are not the same.
Windows Experience Index:
Our NUC build clocks in at 5.3 in Windows 8's experience index. The weak point here is the HD5000 graphics, as expected.
Users looking for more graphics power within a similar form factor would do well to look at Gigabyte's BRIX Pro which comes with Intel's Iris Pro graphics.
Futuremark Benchmarks:
Miscellaneous Benchmarks:
These are impressive benchmark numbers when the size of the system is taken into consideration.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
107 Comments
View All Comments
chrnochime - Sunday, January 5, 2014 - link
Burned haha. Go ask this question on any english forum worth its salt and realize how wrong you are LOLandrusoid - Thursday, January 9, 2014 - link
Not a double negative. Read a book, preferably one concerning grammar and english usage. "So you actually agreeing with ddriver." Something's missing. By the way, "dis" is not negation. (This is not a double negative statement, as well.)theangryintern - Friday, January 10, 2014 - link
That sounds like a confession to me. In fact the double negative has led to proof positive. I'm afraid you gave yourself away.ddriver - Saturday, January 4, 2014 - link
You can be sorry and disagree all you want but this will not change the facts.That particular atom chip is a POC, slower than even mid-range contemporary phones, with terrible GPU (cripples browser rendering performance) and running a bloated OS. I have very smooth experience with both "desktop" websites (I hate crippled mobile versions) and with PDFs sporting high resolution images (here the reader implementation plays a tremendous role) on my phone (note 3) - that type of content is literally FLYING. I haven't been printing from the phone yet, but I am pretty sure it will not take minutes to print a 20 page document.
And don't think for a moment that I am used to sluggish performance and therefore have lower standards and expectations. My desktop config: i7 3770k 32gb samsung 830 SSD - while 2 years old, by no means a sloth.
BehindEnemyLines - Sunday, January 5, 2014 - link
It makes me wonder why Chrome OS laptops are moving from ARM to Intel x86 (Haswell) if it's "slower than even mid-range contemporary phones"? I mean, Chrome OS started with ARM, and it's pretty lightweight.Gigaplex - Sunday, January 5, 2014 - link
An old Atom is slow, not Haswell.lhl - Friday, January 17, 2014 - link
I have both the Samsung Series 3 (Exynos 5) Chromebook and the new Haswell-based C720. Performance difference/day-to-day usability is night and day, the C720 blows aways the ARM Chromebook. While I'd imagine TDP to be slightly higher, the C720 actually has much longer battery life (8h vs 5h) while only being 3-4 ounces heavier. The C720 also has better build-quality, screen, keyboard, and trackpad...JohanAnandtech - Sunday, January 5, 2014 - link
I guess I will have to benchmark it to prove it. You are downplaying the N2800, but it was close enough to a 1.4 GHz Quad Cortex A9 with a 2 MB L2 (Calxeda ECX-1000). That is very similar to the current midrange Phone. In fact, given how bandwidth bottlenecked most ARM CPUs are, the 4 MB L2 would probably give that chip an edge over the current midrange.virtual void - Sunday, January 5, 2014 - link
There is something about Intels CPU-design vs ARM that does not show in benchmarks like Geekbench and similar. Even the old Z2460 (single core "old" Atom) platform still feels quite snappy when running Android, the "feel" of this SoC is way better than what one would believe when looking purely at benchmarks.My guess is that Intels CPU-cache design, especially L2, still is a couple of notch above what any ARM CPU vendor current got.
shodanshok - Sunday, January 5, 2014 - link
I absolutely agree. In the past I tried to show that as benchmark results show, a single Atom Core is quite comparable to anything between one and two A9 cores. However, many poster simply choose to ignore this fact, accusing me to be totally wrong...