Intel NUC5i7RYH Broadwell-U Iris NUC Reviewby Ganesh T S on April 20, 2015 8:00 AM EST
- Posted in
Performance Metrics - I
The Intel NUC5i7RYH was evaluated using our standard test suite for low power desktops / industrial PCs. We revamped our benchmark suite early last year after the publication of the Intel D54250WYK NUC review. We reran some of the new benchmarks on the older PCs also, but some of them couldn't be run on loaner samples. Therefore, the list of PCs in each graph might not be the same.
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 as well as the RAM speed. Even though the Core i7-5557U in the NUC5i7RYH is not as powerful as the Core i7-4770R in the BRIX Pro, we find that the scores are neck and neck, with the former even edging out the more powerful variant (possibly due to differences in the OpenCL drivers that they were tested with).
Miscellaneous Futuremark Benchmarks
In the other Futuremark benchmarks, the relative performance is as expected - the Core i7-4770R leads the pack, followed by the Core i7-5557U in the NUC5i7RYH. This trend is also present in the CINEBENCH results discussed below.
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.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
ShieTar - Monday, April 20, 2015 - linkDepends on what you mean with "the M.2 spec". I have a XP941 on a MSI Z97 Board, its measurably faster than the 840Pro I came from.
I figure in this case the problem should be with the NUC board rather than the interface spec. The Plextor itself is not fast enough to profit from the interface, but it should be fast enough to work without noticable stuttering.
nutternatter34 - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - linkIn my case we're talking about an X99 board, and an Intel 530 series M.2 drive (180gb). I compared that to each SSD I own. An Intel 320 series, a Samsung 830 series and the Crucial MX100 series. (120gb/256gb/512gb). M.2 was a disaster, what's worse there's barely anything to configure, it should just work.
meacupla - Monday, April 20, 2015 - linkOh, so this is limited to 45W?
I wonder what the 3rd party makers could do with this chip if they expanded the power envelope and cooling capabilities.
Qwertilot - Monday, April 20, 2015 - link28w for the CPU/GPU, 17 for the rest even ;)
I guess we'll find out what is possible when Broadwell K finally makes its much delayed appearance....
charea - Monday, April 20, 2015 - linkSo why use a 65W brick for a system limited at 45W? It doesn't make sense.
close - Monday, April 20, 2015 - linkIf you're going to power some more devices from the system then it helps to have a power source that's slightly oversized.
charea - Monday, April 20, 2015 - linkAre you saying that the monitor is excluded from this limit? Was the test done without a screen included?
dave_the_nerd - Monday, April 20, 2015 - linkUSB devices pull up to 5w each. The test doesn't include a monitor. 30-40w draw for a 24" monitor is typical.
ganeshts - Monday, April 20, 2015 - linkRight - 4x USB 3.0 ports need 20W. Add that to the 45W, and you are already at the 65W limit.
Our stress test only loads up the CPU and GPU - it doesn't even do the internal storage stressing or WLAN stressing - these are bound to increase the power consumption a bit. That said, stressing those might actually result in the CPU not getting loaded as much as it does in our Prime 95 test.
ShieTar - Monday, April 20, 2015 - linkAnd thats nicely keeping to the spec, there are ports and charger cables out there working with 2A => 10W.