Performance Metrics - I

The ECS LIVA x2 was evaluated using our standard test suite for low power desktops / industrial PCs. The performance metrics are determined using a mixture of artificial benchmarks and a few real world programs.

Futuremark PCMark 8

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. The Celeron N3050 performs better than the Bay Trail CPUs in the earlier LIVA models. However, even though it should be better theoretically compared to the Celeron N3000 in the ASRock Beebox, we see the Futuremark benchmarks favour the latter. This could be due to a couple of reasons - the Beebox has a storage subsystem (mSATA SSD) that performs much better than the eMMC in the LIVA x2. In addition, the Beebox uses dual-channel (2x64) DDR3L memory, while the LIVA x2 appears to use LPDDR3 uses 4x x16 (1x64) DDR3L memory chips at the same frequency. While LPDDR3 using a smaller sized memory bus can save power over DDR3L, not taking advantage of the full memory bus width of the SoC definitely leads to some loss in performance.

Futuremark PCMark 8 - Home OpenCL

Futuremark PCMark 8 - Creative OpenCL

Futuremark PCMark 8 - Work OpenCL

Miscellaneous Futuremark Benchmarks

Futuremark PCMark 7 - PCMark Suite Score

Futuremark 3DMark 11 - Extreme Score

Futuremark 3DMark 11 - Entry Score

Futuremark 3DMark 2013 - Ice Storm Score

Futuremark 3DMark 2013 - Cloud Gate Score

The LIVA x2 manages to score higher than the Beebox in all of the 3DMark benchmarks except the Cloud Gate workload that is part of 3DMark 2013. The higher clocks in the Celeron N3050 (compared to the Celeron N3000) might be at play here.

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R15

We have moved on from R11.5 to R15 for 3D rendering evaluation. CINEBENCH R15 provides three benchmark modes - OpenGL, single threaded and multi-threaded. Evaluation of select PCs in all three modes provided us the following results.

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R15 - Single Thread

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R15 - Multiple Threads

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R15 - OpenGL

CINEBENCH comfortably brings out the effects of the higher clocks in the LIVA x2's SoC compared to the one in the ASRock Beebox. Other comparison numbers reflect the fact that the performance of the CPU cores in the Core series processors is much better than the Silvermont / Airmont cores.

Introduction and Setup Impressions Performance Metrics - II
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • casteve - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link

    "Even though this is a power virus test, the chassis temperatures reach an uncomfortable 75 C. ECS has taken the unenviable task of providing passive cooling for a 6W TDP SoC in a plastic chassis, and the problems are evident. It is likely that a chassis design similar to that of the Zotac C-series nano units (with perforations all around) could help with this aspect."

    Maybe. I found the Zotac CI320 to have a 60+ min thermal tail with steady state idle temp of 50C. Perhaps a solution with both the perforated case of the Zotac and the better heatsink of the Liva would cut it. I think 6W TDP is the limit of what you can put in a plastic case. Beyond this, you need a metal case plate or a fan.

    Thanks for the review.
  • takeshi7 - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link

    Can you please review the Liva Core, next?
  • hojnikb - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link

    I wish someone made Core M PCs. Silvermont is okay for light tasks, but thats about it.

    And Core M could be easily passivly cooled.
  • takeshi7 - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link

    ECS makes the Liva Core. It has a passively cooled Core M.
  • johnsonx - Tuesday, August 25, 2015 - link

    Recently sold some MSI Cubi systems to clients, really nice. All use Haswell SoC's, commonly available are dual-core 1.5Ghz Celeron, 1.9Ghz Pentium, and 2.0Ghz Core i3 with Hyper-threading. They do have fans, but are VERY quiet.
  • nathanddrews - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link

    AMD really needs to get new Carrizo (non-L) into this category if they can. It would be HTPC and light gaming PERFECTION.
  • V900 - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link

    Having looked into both Bay Trail as well as Braswell recently when I wanted a passively cooled mini PC, I came away pretty disappointed with Braswell.

    The unfortunate truth is, that despite the Braswell N3050/3150 being a 14nm part, and the Bay Trail J1800/1900 a 22nm part, in most use cases the Bay Trail is faster than the Braswell.

    Most users would be better off getting the older Bay Trail system with the dual core J1800 CPU or the quadcore J1900. Why?

    First of all Intel cut down power usage TOO MUCH. So much that it impacts performance. The Bay Trail parts have a 10W TDP, and manage to be cooled passively just fine. The Braswell parts have 4/6W TDP, and if you want to know where Intel found the additional Watts, look at the base clock.

    The Braswell parts turboclock to just over 2GHZ, but the rest of the time they skip along at a pretty slow 1.6 GHZ.

    The Bay Trail quadcore part on the other hand has a base clock of 2 GHZ but turbos up to 2.4, whereas the dualcore J1800 has a base clock of 2.4 GHZ, and turbos up to 2.6 GHZ.

    That's why the Bay Trail parts are faster at most tasks then the newer Braswell. If you look at some of the reviews you'll see how they handily beat them in most benchmarks...
  • BMNify - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link

    i cant see the point of any of these low power soc no matter what purpose , if it doesn't have avx/2 ( and none of these do) and at least quad cores its no better than the other 2006 sse4 simd available since Penryn then its already obsolete , IMO not even really good enough for the bargain basement generic £20 wifi router in 2015
  • V900 - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link

    You're being waaay to performance-snobbish here.

    Don't see the point? It's 2015 man! Intel has squeezed so much performance out of X86 that these their cheapest CPUs are fast enough for most people.

    They're fine for everyday computing tasks, as long as your needs are just basic web surfing, YouTube/movie playing and light Office work.

    My dad uses one for the above. Yeah, he could have gotten something with an i3 or i5 but he wanted something quiet, and for most tasks the speed difference is barely noticeable.

    They also have plenty of horsepower (and Intel quicksync video) to be a nifty and silent media center. And really cheap too. You can get one an embedded CPU, mini Itx motherboard and 4gb ram, for less or right around a hundred dollars.
  • BMNify - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link

    see below for the many of the 5v/2A arm boxes that have real HDMI2 at 60fps HW/SW playback of UHD1 content....
    as long as intel do not provide the 2015 options (avx2 ,HDMI2/UHD1/60P etc instead of 2006 simd etc) on these low power SOC they will never pass the profitable ARM quad/octacore UHD compliant boxes we can buy right now....

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now