UL Benchmarks - PCMark and 3DMark

This section deals with a selection of the UL Futuremark benchmarks - PCMark 10, PCMark 8, and 3DMark. While the first two evaluate the system as a whole, 3DMark focuses on the graphics capabilities.

PCMark 10

UL's PCMark 10 evaluates computing systems for various usage scenarios (generic / essential tasks such as web browsing and starting up applications, productivity tasks such as editing spreadsheets and documents, gaming, and digital content creation). We benchmarked select PCs with the PCMark 10 Extended profile and recorded the scores for various scenarios. These scores are heavily influenced by the CPU and GPU in the system, though the RAM and storage device also play a part. The power plan was set to Balanced for all the PCs while processing the PCMark 10 benchmark.

Futuremark PCMark 10 - Essentials

Futuremark PCMark 10 - Productivity

Futuremark PCMark 10 - Gaming

Futuremark PCMark 10 - Digital Content Creation

Futuremark PCMark 10 - Extended

The DeskMini 310 is in the middle of the pack for the Essentials and Productivity workloads. We already know that the gaming workloads are a weak point for the integrated GPUs in the low-end Core series desktop CPUs. Therefore, the relative positions in the other workloads are not surprising

PCMark 8

We continue to present PCMark 8 benchmark results (as those have more comparison points) while our PCMark 10 scores database for systems grows in size. 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 expected, the DeskMini 310 comes in the middle in the Work scenario. Homw and Creative workloads don't seem to strongpoints for the system.

Futuremark PCMark 8 - Home OpenCL

Futuremark PCMark 8 - Creative OpenCL

Futuremark PCMark 8 - Work OpenCL

3DMark

UL's 3DMark comes with a diverse set of graphics workloads that target different Direct3D feature levels. Correspondingly, the rendering resolutions are also different. We use 3DMark 2.4.4264 to get an idea of the graphics capabilities of the system. In this section, we take a look at the performance of the ASRock DeskMini 310 across the different 3DMark workloads.

3DMark Ice Storm

This workload has three levels of varying complexity - the vanilla Ice Storm, Ice Storm Unlimited, and Ice Storm Extreme. It is a cross-platform benchmark (which means that the scores can be compared across different tablets and smartphones as well). All three use DirectX 11 (feature level 9) / OpenGL ES 2.0. While the Extreme renders at 1920 x 1080, the other two render at 1280 x 720. The graphs below present the various Ice Storm worloads' numbers for different systems that we have evaluated.

UL 3DMark - Ice Storm Workloads

3DMark Cloud Gate

The Cloud Gate workload is meant for notebooks and typical home PCs, and uses DirectX 11 (feature level 10) to render frames at 1280 x 720. The graph below presents the overall score for the workload across all the systems that are being compared.

UL 3DMark Cloud Gate Score

3DMark Sky Diver

The Sky Diver workload is meant for gaming notebooks and mid-range PCs, and uses DirectX 11 (feature level 11) to render frames at 1920 x 1080. The graph below presents the overall score for the workload across all the systems that are being compared.

UL 3DMark Sky Diver Score

3DMark Fire Strike Extreme

The Fire Strike benchmark has three workloads. The base version is meant for high-performance gaming PCs. Similar to Sky Diver, it uses DirectX 11 (feature level 11) to render frames at 1920 x 1080. The Ultra version targets 4K gaming system, and renders at 3840 x 2160. However, we only deal with the Extreme version in our benchmarking - It renders at 2560 x 1440, and targets multi-GPU systems and overclocked PCs. The graph below presents the overall score for the Fire Strike Extreme benchmark across all the systems that are being compared.

UL 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme Score

3DMark Time Spy

The Time Spy workload has two levels with different complexities. Both use DirectX 12 (feature level 11). However, the plain version targets high-performance gaming PCs with a 2560 x 1440 render resolution, while the Extreme version renders at 3840 x 2160 resolution. The graphs below present both numbers for all the systems that are being compared in this review.

UL 3DMark - Time Spy Workloads

3DMark Night Raid

The Night Raid workload is a DirectX 12 benchmark test. It is less demanding than Time Spy, and is optimized for integrated graphics. The graph below presents the overall score in this workload for different system configurations.

UL 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme Score

As expected, the gaming prowess of the Core i3-8100 in the DeskMini 310 is nothing to write home about. It comes in second from last across all the workloads, turning out to be only slightly better than the Zotac ZBOX MI553 (using the Core i5-7300HQ).

BAPCo SYSmark 2018 Miscellaneous Performance Metrics
POST A COMMENT

49 Comments

View All Comments

  • sudhansu9dm - Friday, March 15, 2019 - link

    Thanks for the reviewing this! I think this is a fantastic form factor held back by the use of older and nerfed chipsets. Reply
  • ciparis - Friday, March 15, 2019 - link

    For SFF machines like this, the industry standard I/O backplane needs to be replaced with a much more modern solution, sized appropriately for modern ports. Such an eyesore and a terrific waste of space. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Friday, March 15, 2019 - link

    "waste of space" What would you put there to use up the space? It seems to me that the cooler might interfer with higher stacks of sockets. Reply
  • Hixbot - Friday, March 15, 2019 - link

    You really need to add noise measurements to your SFF reviews. Reply
  • zodiacfml - Saturday, March 16, 2019 - link

    The STX form factor will become more interesting in the years to come, considering Intel's tech roadmap (better integrated graphics, 3D chip stacking). Reply
  • zodiacfml - Saturday, March 16, 2019 - link

    Forgot the most important, 10nm chips which could allow 10core CPUs in 65w TDP Reply
  • Lord of the Bored - Saturday, March 16, 2019 - link

    Assuming Intel ever figures out how to make chips in quantity again. I can't decide if the ongoing supply issues are sad, funny, or a sinister ploy to get people used to higher processor prices in advance of a new suggested retail cost plan. Reply
  • ajp_anton - Saturday, March 16, 2019 - link

    I have a question about these "65W max" motherboards. What limitations have they put in place for 95W CPUs? Does the BIOS simply reject them, or will it fry the board at some point? I was thinking if it's possible to plug in a 95W -K processor but undervolt and underclock it so that it stays within 65W, but hopefully at a higher frequency than a stock 65W CPU thanks to the manual undervolting. Reply
  • ajp_anton - Saturday, March 16, 2019 - link

    Especially since that 65W CPU never really uses 65W anyway. With a -K CPU it might be possible to create your own custom CPU that hits 65W max. Reply
  • MoreloveXXX - Sunday, March 17, 2019 - link

    A real man will find a girl in a couple of minutes. =>> http://newgirlworld.ga Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now