Power Consumption and Thermal Performance

The power consumption at the wall was measured with a 4K display being driven through the HDMI 2.0 port. In the graphs below, we compare the idle and load power of the Intel NUC6CAYH with other low power PCs evaluated before. For load power consumption, we ran the AIDA64 System Stability Test with various stress components, as well as our power virus test, and noted the maximum sustained power consumption at the wall.

Idle Power Consumption

Load Power Consumption (AIDA64 SST)

The Intel NUC6CAYH has a powerful CPU that wins in a majority of the presented benchmarks. But, it comes with a significant power penalty, both at idle and full loading.

Our thermal stress routine starts with the system at idle, followed by four stages of different system loading profiles using the AIDA64 System Stability Test (each of 30 minutes duration). In the first stage, we stress the CPU, caches and RAM. In the second stage, we add the GPU to the above list. In the third stage, we stress the GPU standalone. In the final stage, we stress all the system components (including the disks). Beyond this, we leave the unit idle in order to determine how quickly the various temperatures in the system can come back to normal idling range. The various clocks, temperatures and power consumption numbers for the system during the above routine are presented in the graphs below.

Intel NUC6CAYH - AIDA64 System Stability Test

According to the official specifications of the Intel Celeron J3455, the junction temperature of the SoC is 105C. We do not see the numbers go anywhere that in the AIDA64 SST processing of the system. Interestingly, the package power seems to be configured for around 12.5W instead of 10W (as dictated by the TDP).

The AIDA64 system stability test uses real-world workloads to stress the system components. However, power virus tests such as the Prime 95 torture test and Furmark stability test can subject the system to greater stress. We repeated our thermal stress routine with 30 minutes of Prime 95 (v29.1), followed by 30 minutes of Prime 95 and Furmark (1.19.1). The Prime 95 load was then removed, and the GPU stressing Furmark test was allowed too run for another 30 minutes. The various clocks, temperatures and power consumption numbers for the system during the above routine are presented in the graphs below.

Intel NUC6CAYH - Custom System Stability Test

Here, we see the temperatures going up to 100C, but there is no throttling involved. Peak sustained power consumption numbers are also higher than what we encountered in the AIDA64 system stability test.

 

4K HTPC Credentials Final Words
POST A COMMENT

56 Comments

View All Comments

  • negusp - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link

    When are we going to get a Ryzen mobile review from IntelTech? Or are we going to have to continue to sit through overpriced Intel NUC reviews and the like? Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link

    "When are we going to get a Ryzen mobile review from IntelTech?"

    Hopefully soon. AMD has yet to ship us a sample (but is supposed to be doing so any time now).
    Reply
  • negusp - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link

    Cool, thanks. Reply
  • french toast - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link

    Very poor from AMD, I wish they would get their act together with the tech press, how long has Ryzen mobile been out for? 3-4 months?.
    Hopefully after all this time they ship you Acer 2700u equiped unit.
    Reply
  • npz - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link

    > Very poor from AMD
    Dats right mon. Dey still po-ah dan Intel!
    Reply
  • Lolimaster - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link

    They should buy the product, I mean, they salaries right? Not like it's a hobby site. Purch media, intel's ally. Reply
  • npz - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link

    Purch is probably paying Tom's more due to the ads. Enough ads with autoplaying video everywhere to make that site completely unusable though. Reply
  • StevoLincolnite - Sunday, January 14, 2018 - link

    Would have been great if you threw a couple of MOBA benchmarks in to see how she copes. Reply
  • HStewart - Monday, January 15, 2018 - link

    I thought we have already had reviews on it - or is that just hype. I saw one in best buy yesterday and it look quite fat compared to other notebooks.

    But getting back this subject - this NUC you can't blame Intel as being over price - there is a big difference between 470 as configured and $130 for NUC from Intel - where is $340. for $470 you could almost buy 2 of these NUC's - for $470 you can get i5-7100U based nuc
    Reply
  • HStewart - Monday, January 15, 2018 - link

    I am not sure where you get "overpriced Intel NUC" from - maybe the review has it wrong, but if you go to the following link you can start out with minimal price of $215 - keep in mind it only has 32G eMMC and 2G of ram

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MXYZ8V5?tag=anandtech...
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now