Performance Metrics - I

The Intel Core m3-6Y30 Compute Stick was evaluated using our standard test suite for low power desktops / industrial PCs. Not all benchmarks were processed on all the machines due to updates in our testing procedures. Therefore, the list of PCs in each graph might not be the same. In the first section, we will be looking at SYSmark 2014, as well as some of the Futuremark benchmarks.

BAPCo SYSmark 2014

BAPCo's SYSmark 2014 is an application-based benchmark that uses real-world applications to replay usage patterns of business users in the areas of office productivity, media creation and data/financial analysis. Scores are meant to be compared against a reference desktop (HP ProDesk 600 G1 with a Core i3-4130, 4GB RAM and a 500GB hard drive) that scores 1000 in each of the scenarios. A score of, say, 2000, would imply that the system under test is twice as fast as the reference system.

Since SYSmark 2014 was not processed on any of of the PCs in our comparison list, we present the scores obtained in the three iterations of the benchmark above. Obviously, a 7.5W TDP Skylake Core M is no match for a 54W Haswell Core i3. However, it still manages to delivery more than 70% of its performance for business workloads.

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. Most of the PCs in our comparison list are equipped with anaemic Atom processors, and the Core m3-6Y30 manages to easily better them in performance despite the form factor limitation.

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

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

Introduction and Setup Impressions Performance Metrics - II
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • damianrobertjones - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    A combination of a very slow SSD and 2Gb is never a good thing no matter what CPU.
  • Arbie - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    I use Process Lasso on low-end machines like this and it helps a lot. Even a 2010 netbook became reasonably useable with Office etc. Try the free version.
  • mkozakewich - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    2 GB was generally enough. Even when there was plenty of free RAM, though, the Atom processor was barely able to load heavy web pages. Chrome in particular seemed to run sluggish (especially on infinitely scrolling pages, like Tumblr).
  • BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, June 28, 2016 - link

    Chrome is burdened more than other web browsers because the system is not only busy logging and reporting user activity to Microsoft, but also doing the same with browser activity to Google plus the site you're surfing is usually keeping an eye on your usage too. The double/triple data mining penalty is pretty hard on a low-power chip like the Atom. Firefox with a noscript (as long as you don't mind breaking a lot of website functionality and then having to pick through individual blocked script sources to find the right ones to restore those functions) usually will vastly improve web performance on an Atom CPU.
  • silverblue - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    We're using a few of the Cherry Trail sticks (STK1AW32SC) for simple slideshow-style screens at work; their footprint is miniscule compared to the laptops we used to have, meaning we can hide them away. The m3 would be overkill in this case, plus I can get three of the Atom models for the same price which work just fine.
  • Pissedoffyouth - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    How is the Linux support for these sticks?
  • nfriedly - Tuesday, June 28, 2016 - link

    Excellent in my experience. Ubuntu 16.04 works perfectly out of the box, and 14.04 mostly works (no wifi drivers, though).

    Intel sells a m5 version with no OS, although it's more expensive honestly not much faster than the m3 version with windows.
  • Pissedoffyouth - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

  • CaedenV - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    I am pretty excited that these are getting better... but who are these supposed to be marketed to exactly? The specs aren't quite there for an office or school machine (but close! just ditch the fan and give a bit more onboard storage). For the HTPC market (is that really a market outside of a few video enthusiasts?) it is just about right on specs, but for the price there are far better options if you don't mind a slightly larger form factor.

    If intel wants to sell gobs and gobs of computers then they really need to do the following:
    Quad Core CPU (or dual with HT), m series is actuially fine, but an i3 would be better
    8GB of RAM
    128GB solid state storage (SSD or even eMMC)
    GPU (and ports) capable of 2 1080p displays, and hardware acceleration for newest video codecs (HEVC and VP9/AV1)
    Headphone jack (seriously, have a bunch of NUCs without a jack... such a pain!)
    Secure-able (so they don't walk off when plugged into the back of a monitor)
    Win10 Pro preloaded
    Compute Stick or NUC form factor
    3 year warranty
    $400 or less

    Schools and businesses would buy these up in droves! NUCs are almost there, but they tend to have fans, and system builders typically exceed the $400 price point once configured with RAM and SSD; business could build it themselves for less, but they are in the business of doing business instead of building their own custom PCs. Maybe another year or two and we will see this happen?
  • tipoo - Monday, June 27, 2016 - link

    In Core Ms ~5W power envelope, I suspect most people would be better on a dual, even if they think they want a quad.

    In such low power spaces a quad just means each core is running at a significantly reduced clock over a dual. It's the same reason why there was that 28W quad which no manufacturer picked, as the dual cores were faster 90% of the time. Especially for, you know, most people getting a 28W CPU, let alone those getting a 5W one.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now