Intel NUC6CAYH (Arches Canyon) Apollo Lake UCFF PC Review
by Ganesh T S on January 12, 2018 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Systems
- Intel
- NUC
- UCFF
- Apollo Lake
- Arches Canyon
Networking and Storage Performance
Networking and storage are two major aspects which influence our experience with any computing system. This section presents results from our evaluation of these aspects in the Intel NUC6CAYH. 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.
The Crucial MX200 with its MLC NAND is an impressive performer compared to the other SATA SSDs that we have used in our Atom-class PC reviews.
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 couple of drywalls (as in a typical US building). A wired client 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 1x1 AC3168 doesn't perform as well as the Cherry Trail Compute Stick's 2x2 AC7260 in the TCP throughput test. The numbers in both cases are typical of what one might expect from a 1x1 WLAN card.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
54 Comments
View All Comments
ganeshts - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
Have you looked at the prices of RAM and flash lately? The Corsair kit was $90 when I was writing this review a week or so back (looks like it is $80 today), and the MX200 is relatively rare to find now (it was $250 when I was writing this). I think the cheapest equivalent today would be the BX300 480GB @ $145. So, the $470 price at the time of writing is probably closer to $355 now.That said, RAM and flash prices are fluctuating wildly due to the recent shortage. Things ought to become stable and a bit cheaper soon.
powellandy - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
Do you have any comment on the ability to play 3D - looks like it's an ongoing saga with Intel chips -https://communities.intel.com/thread/112109
bill44 - Saturday, January 13, 2018 - link
Been following that thread, which is now dead. Intel won't/can't fix it. If they could, they've done it by now. Not enough customer complained (not to mention, 3D for the industry is dead), as such it just gets dragged out until everyone gives up.Going into the future, native HDMI 2.x may fix the issue, but going by past experience, there will always be problems with a HTPC setup (check out MadVR Madshi forums regarding constant driver issues).
powellandy - Monday, January 15, 2018 - link
I agree, but I was hoping if they mention it in the review and perhaps ask Intel it would put a bit of pressure on them to fix it!bji - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
Do the benchmarks include Meltdown and Spectre fixes? If they don't, then the numbers are not accurate.ganeshts - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
The benchmark numbers were processed before the security fixes started coming in. The relative numbers are still accurate when you compare one unit against the other (all of them in the comparison graphs are Intel-based systems).We are waiting for the dust to settle on all security fixes before embarking on any benchmark numbers regeneration procedures.
satai - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
Some comparison to Core Ms would be nice.fuzzymath10 - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
It's just "feel" based, but I bought my NUC (the same one + old Intel 320 160GB + 8GB ram + W10 Pro) to play videos on my 4k TV. Before, I temporarily used my Venue 7140 Pro with the 5Y10. The 5Y10 is faster for pretty much any "normal" task such as internet browsing which shouldn't be a surprise. Raw multithreaded might be more similar but the Core M is a smoother overall experience.However, the NUC supports 4k @ 60Hz while the HDMI from my Venue is only good to 30Hz. The NUC IGP can also decode HEVC while the HD 5300 in the Venue cannot, and the 5Y10 is not fast enough to software-decode most HEVC content (neither can the J3455). The Core M is also passively cooled while the NUC is semi-passive (fan can shut off).
Unfortunately, Core M is also very expensive. However, I would say the jump in user experience from the NUC to Core M is greater than from Core M to my desktop (i7 3770).
lilmoe - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
Call me when Intel is capable of delivering anything remotely equal in terms of video/streaming playback performance and efficiency as my 2 year old Galaxy S7.Such incompetence, what a joke.
Hixbot - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
Are you kidding? This nuc is leaps and bounds more powerful that your smartphone.