Performance Metrics - II

In this section, we mainly look at benchmark modes in programs used on a day-to-day basis, i.e, application performance and not synthetic workloads.

x264 Benchmark

First off, we have some video encoding benchmarks courtesy of x264 HD Benchmark v5.0. This is simply a test of CPU performance. As expected, the Broadwell cores in the ECS LIVA Core perform way better compared to the Atom cores in other products. Between the Atom-based products, the four physical cores in the x7-Z8700 and the higher core clocks help the Voyo V3 edge out the other products in this benchmark.

Video Encoding - x264 5.0 - Pass 1

Video Encoding - x264 5.0 - Pass 2


7-Zip is a very effective and efficient compression program, often beating out OpenCL accelerated commercial programs in benchmarks even while using just the CPU power. 7-Zip has a benchmarking program that provides tons of details regarding the underlying CPU's efficiency. In this subsection, we are interested in the compression and decompression MIPS ratings when utilizing all the available threads. These results are actually a bit surprising - perhaps, indicative of the fact that physical threads perform better than hyper-threaded resources when it comes to 7-Zip. Note that the Atom x7-Z8700 in the Voyo V3 has four physical cores compared to the 2C/4T configuration of, say, the Core M-5Y10c in the ECS LIVA Core.

7-Zip LZMA Compression Benchmark

7-Zip LZMA Decompression Benchmark


As businesses (and even home consumers) become more security conscious, the importance of encryption can't be overstated. CPUs supporting the AES-NI instruction for accelerating the encryption and decryption processes have, till now, been the higher end SKUs. However, with Bay Trail, even the lowly Atom series has gained support for AES-NI. This has migrated down to Cherry Trail also. The Atom x7-Z8700 in the Voyo V3 does have AES-NI support. TrueCrypt, a popular open-source disk encryption program can take advantage of the AES-NI capabilities. The TrueCrypt internal benchmark provides some interesting cryptography-related numbers to ponder. In the graph below, we can get an idea of how fast a TrueCrypt volume would behave in the Voyo V3 and how it would compare with other select PCs. This is a purely CPU feature / clock speed based test.

TrueCrypt Benchmark

Agisoft Photoscan

Agisoft PhotoScan is a commercial program that converts 2D images into 3D point maps, meshes and textures. The program designers sent us a command line version in order to evaluate the efficiency of various systems that go under our review scanner. The command line version has two benchmark modes, one using the CPU and the other using both the CPU and GPU (via OpenCL). The benchmark takes around 50 photographs and does four stages of computation:

  • Stage 1: Align Photographs
  • Stage 2: Build Point Cloud (capable of OpenCL acceleration)
  • Stage 3: Build Mesh
  • Stage 4: Build Textures

We record the time taken for each stage. Since various elements of the software are single threaded, others multithreaded, and some use GPUs, it is interesting to record the effects of CPU generations, speeds, number of cores, DRAM parameters and the GPU using this software.

In this real-world benchmark, the situation is not as clear-cut as in the other cases. In general, the LIVA Core is the most effective. However, the Voyo V3 doesn't consistently come in second. It could have a lot to do with the memory sub-system (while most of the PCs we have evaluated before are DDR3L-based, the Voyo V3 has LPDDR3 DRAM).

Agisoft PhotoScan Benchmark - Stage 1

Agisoft PhotoScan Benchmark - Stage 2

Agisoft PhotoScan Benchmark - Stage 3

Agisoft PhotoScan Benchmark - Stage 4

Dolphin Emulator

Wrapping up our application benchmark numbers is the Dolphin Emulator benchmark mode results. This is again a test of the CPU capabilities, and the results track what we have seen in the previous benchmarks.

Dolphin Emulator Benchmark

Performance Metrics - I Networking and Storage Performance
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • ganeshts - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    As you can see from the thermal stress graphs, the GPU clocks in around 280 MHz for the Furmark stress test. It is always above the base clock claimed by Intel (200 MHz). In any case, the configuration is such that the total power draw by the system at the wall doesn't exceed 10W under any circumstance (obviously, power draw by any connected USB peripherals is excluded).
  • woggs - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    How do you know you didn't get viruses or other spy-ware for a Chinese file sharing site? I've seen this happen on low-end and high-end systems going direct to vendor sites for drivers in some cases, which resulted in attempts to create an encrypted link back to Chinese IP addresses. The description of issues raise lots of red flags.
  • ganeshts - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    I downloaded on to a VM first. Mounted with 'Dism' on the VM and scanned with Windows Defender before moving it to the Voyo V3 / main network.

    But, yes, Voyo needs to make the drivers available separately.
  • user_5447 - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    Why iperf (ip perf) is confusingly written as iPerf in Wi-Fi graphs?
  • Shadowmaster625 - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    This bifurcated market remains an insulting joke. You can buy these types of systems for $150 all day long. But simply upgrade the atom into a Core m and all the sudden the price is jacked up by $300? That is so insulting that I wouldnt even contemplate buying either.
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    Most of that's down to Intel's pricing. $40 for atom, vs $280 for core M. Implementing a Core M system is more expensive as well, the SoC has 30% more contacts (FCBGA 1515 vs 1170), some of which correspond to extra mobo traces (more expensive PCB). Component wise, you're also looking at 2 channels of ram not 1 for at few more dollars of parts.

    The OEMs are probably charging slightly higher margins since Core M is branded as a premium product not race to the bottom, and retail margins are generally a percentage of the price not a flat dollar amount; but most of the price difference is down to Intel's pricing. Their holding good mobile CPU prices (ie not their cheap lines: Atom, Pentium, Celeron) at floor of nearly $200 is all about maximizing returns in a portion of the market that they have nearly no effective competition at present. (Hopefully Zen will let AMD compete in CPU performance/watt in the ultrabook processor category soon.)
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    Lastly, Core M is priced at a premium to core i3/5/7 because they're dies that're binned for working decently at extra low power levels, the intermediate level Celeron/Pentium lines are much cheaper because they're a dumping ground for duds.
  • dsraa - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    $359 on the 'advertised' amazon link.....pffft. Ain't buying it from there almost 2x as much.....yuck.
  • ganeshts - Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - link

    You can always use the Gearbest link that is in the final page (just prior to the Amazon link) which reflects the true value / non-inflated cost of the system - around $200.
  • jimbo2779 - Thursday, March 3, 2016 - link

    I would never deal with gearbest. Do your research on them, they are terrible, absolutely awful.

    Their trustpilot reviews are faked so look elsewhere and you get an idea of the type of company they are.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now