GIGABYTE GB-BXi7H-5500 Broadwell BRIX Review
by Ganesh T S on January 29, 2015 7:00 AM ESTNetworking and Storage Performance
We have recently started devoting a separate section to analyze the storage and networking credentials of the units under review. On the storage side, one option would be repetition of our strenuous SSD review tests on the drive(s) in the PC. Fortunately, to avoid that overkill, PCMark 8 has a storage bench where certain common workloads such as loading games and document processing are replayed on the target drive. Results are presented in two forms, one being a benchmark number and the other, a bandwidth figure. We ran the PCMark 8 storage bench on selected PCs and the results are presented below.
Surprisingly, the combination of the Core i7-4500U and Samsung's SSD 840 EVO delivers best-in-class results. The same SSD (albeit, with an earlier firmware version) benchmarked lower even in the BRIX Pro. Of course, the SSD 840 EVO is having trouble with the old data read speeds issue - The above results are not recommending the 840 EVO in any way, but just presenting what a fresh SSD 840 EVO can achieve in conjunction with the GB-BXi7H-5500.
On the networking side, we restricted ourselves to the evaluation of the WLAN component. Our standard test router is the Netgear R7000 Nighthawk configured with both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz networks. The router is placed approximately 20 ft. away, separated by a drywall (as in a typical US building). A wired client (Zotac ID89-Plus) is connected to the R7000 and serves as one endpoint for iPerf evaluation. The PC under test is made to connect to either the 5 GHz (preferred) or 2.4 GHz SSID and iPerf tests are conducted for both TCP and UDP transfers. It is ensured that the PC under test is the only wireless client for the Netgear R7000. We evaluate total throughput for up to 32 simultaneous TCP connections using iPerf and present the highest number in the graph below.
In the UDP case, we try to transfer data at the highest rate possible for which we get less than 1% packet loss.
The WLAN performance is good, considering that the Intel AC3160 is a 1x1 802.11ac solution with a maximum theoretical bandwidth of 433 Mbps. We are quite happy to see GIGABYTE discarding the Realtek 802.11ac solution. That said, the use of an Intel AC7260 or AC7265 2x2 solution or a Broadcom BCM4352-based WLAN card would have been even better. On the wired networking side, it is disappointing to see GIGABYTE avoid an Intel GbE LAN chipset such as the i217-V. Instead, we have a Realtek chipset (which doesn't offload the CPU as much as the Intel i21x when it comes to processing network traffic).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
53 Comments
View All Comments
toshz - Friday, January 30, 2015 - link
Does anyone know what's the difference between the AC7260 and AC7265 wireless adapters?I was looking into purchasing the AC7260 to update my ultrabook (currently using AC3160) and then I saw the AC7265. Couldn't find any difference between them on Intel's site.
Thanks.
kevith - Friday, January 30, 2015 - link
Nice review, but why have you stopped opening the cases? I would be interested in one of these, but changing/adding cooling is a must.jrs77 - Friday, January 30, 2015 - link
Allthough I very much like the idea of the smallest PC possible, the NUC or the BRIX (or anything else in this formfactor) is still too expensive compared to a more powerful and better customizable mITX-system.I can build a low-powered mITX-system for $600 (i5-4590T, H97 board, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, 20x20x8cm case incl 90W PSU), which leaves me with money for the Win8.1 license (the one you didn't include in your price there!). Such a system, has much more value and can be strapped to the back of your screen not using anymore space than the NUC or BRIX.
zodiacfml - Friday, January 30, 2015 - link
I agree. That's what I thought of this review. The processor is just too pricey.Someone could buy a notebook with an i5-Haswell with a AMD/Nvidia GPU near that price.
piasabird - Friday, January 30, 2015 - link
If most of what you plan on doing viewing video an i3 with 4 megs of cache will work just fine.deathwombat - Friday, January 30, 2015 - link
Does the top of the box actually say "Supports 2.5" Hard Drivers"? At least have someone proofread your packaging!eanazag - Friday, January 30, 2015 - link
I agree on the networking. 2x2 Wifi would be better and Intel NIC. I dislike the Realtek NICs. With an Intel NIC there are more options from the software side, like a tiny VM server.vision33r - Saturday, January 31, 2015 - link
Intel has no pressure to improve performance.Mikad - Tuesday, February 3, 2015 - link
This is just a small thing, but it has bothered me much lately: Many of the new articles have a quite bad "featured image". For example this one: Just a picture of the box with a bad lightning. The product itself is interesting but the picture is a turn off. IMHO it would be great if you could put more effort into these pictures.Teknobug - Wednesday, February 4, 2015 - link
Looks like gaming is out of the question, at least at 1920x1080. May as well go with an i3 or N2940 and play via Steam stream from a gaming PC.Otherwise everything else about this is awesome.