BAPCo's SYSmark 2018 is an application-based benchmark that has been developed by Intel engineers for Intel CPUs and does not truly reflect performance of any real world application by any other chip vendor. The fact that every other chip maker have all abandoned Bapco's boards tell you something. This is a known conflict of interest that degrades Anandtech's credibility by highlighting it. At least in the past the articles, these conflicts were pointed out regarding Bapco's shaky past.
Anandtech's quality has been on a continuous downward slide, including increasing Intel/Nvidia bias, ever since Anand left. The site looks and sounds like it's written by children now - especially including comments the editorial staff post in comments sections and on twitter.
Seems like this article only compares Intel systems to other Intel systems - so what's the problem? Other than, of course, this article does not agree with some personal bias of yours, therefore all of Anandtech is now not credible, etc. A little extreme reaction don't you think? But such is the way witht he extremism in EVERYTHING these days. Social media has destroyed any chance for critical thinking. Anandtech does an article that's positive towards Intel, OMG BIASED, They hate AMD. They write a different article that's positive towards an AMD product - OMG BIASED! Why the hate on Intel?
Yup, using a benchmark by Bapco in which no chip company besides Intel seems to have confidence does leave a rather bad taste. nVidia, AMD and VIA all left the consortium back in 2011 and prior to that Bapco was found to have modified their benchmarks in a way that favored Intel CPU
SYSmark 2018 is one of several tools we use in this article. It is certainly not the only tool we use, and it's not a tool we use in all situations (e.g. architecture deep dives). Meanwhile for SFF PCs in particular, its power measurement capabilities are pretty handy to have. Plus the only other systems we're comparing it to are all Intel-based anyhow.
If BAPCO SYSMark was developed by Intel engineers, this would seem more an issue if/when comparing Intel systems to AMD, and not really an issue when comparing all Intel systems...
The Realtec NICs may be a blessing for use with Windows Server (Intel has a nasty habit of not providing drivers for many of their NICs). Having two will let you set up a team there (perhaps to use as a AD/DNS server) or use as a firewall/router (not that I'd use Windows Server for either).
I've generally had good luck with Realtec with Windows Server and PFSense.
Thanks Ganesh! Two comments, one question - question first: Was your choice of a SATA SSD based on the ability of the ZBOX to support (not support) an NVMe SSD, or based on what parts were available? As a comment, use of slower vs. faster storage (SATA vs NVMe) will obviously affect a number of performance benchmarks. Why not standardize on one unless the unit tested won't support the better option? My other comment is about the pricing of the ZBOX (bare bone): not a good value proposition for HTPC use, given that the current i7 NUC is cheaper, with a superior CPU/GPU. The presence of two gigabit ethernet connections in the ZBOX might be a plus in certain situations, but otherwise it's overpriced compared to the NUC.
No NVMe SSD support in the CI660 nano. I had to use a SATA drive, and chose the best one available at my disposal from a cost viewpoint (at the time I configured the review sample - sometime in early Q4 2018).
You are right about standardizing the storage drive. However, we tend to choose a drive available in retail for a reasonable cost at the time of configuring the review sample. Since we review a system or two each quarter, it becomes difficult to use the same drive across a large number of reviews. That said, you can find that we either use Crucial SATA SSDs (MX200 / BX300) or Samsung / WD NVMe SSDs (950 PRO / WD Black / SanDisk Extreme Pro) unless the sample comes pre-configured with different SSDs by the vendor (eg. - Hades Canyon).
The CI6xx nano platform is suitable for HTPCs, though, the i7 model might be a bit too pricey for that sole purpose. As one of the other commentators noted, Zotac does have i3- and i5- models in the series.
$865 is $300 too much. Looks like most of this cost is tied up with the use of an i7, which is completely unnecessary in this form factor. CPU power is not the limitation here. The GPU is.
Agreed, I'd rather have a 15W Ryzen 7 3700U in this form factor. Because UHD620 is going to be a severe limitation for anything beyond the most basic low res, minimum settings gaming. Whereas at 720p/med fullscreen, Vega 10 should play pretty much anything.
No idea why Zotac don't offer a Ryzen APU version. Intel 'discounts' maybe ? Or rather, threats of removing them if Zotac don't play ball ? Wouldn't put it past them to offer 'inducemets' like that. Their history being what it is.
There are i3 and i5 versions as well, ci620 and ci640 respectively.
This is a niche product for those who want something NUC-sized but fanless, for which there are relatively few options.That's the selling point, not that it's price competitive with regular NUCs.
Noise question here... Ganesh, you said you were disappointed in the fan noise of the Intel NUC8i7BEH though I didn't see much detail. How bad was it (idle and when streaming something), and is this ZBOX far better noise-wise because it's fanless?
The Bean Canyon NUC's fan is problematic because it is small and high-pitched when there is sudden load on the CPU. At idle, not that much. But, network streaming and even Kodi playback sometimes makes the unit hot enough for the fan to turn on. It is audible from 10 ft away, particularly during quiet scenes in the movie. The ZBOX noise is inaudible at that range - so, for the HTPC user who isn't very picky, it might work.
That said, there are some passive chasses for the Bean Canyon NUCs in the market. Those might be worth a look. However, that is not a 'ready-out-of-the-box' solution.
They could have shaved like $200 off the price going with a i5-8350U, which is essentially 98% as fast across the board because the i7 can only hit 4GHz on 1 active core.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
Back to Article
jgraham11 - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
BAPCo's SYSmark 2018 is an application-based benchmark that has been developed by Intel engineers for Intel CPUs and does not truly reflect performance of any real world application by any other chip vendor. The fact that every other chip maker have all abandoned Bapco's boards tell you something. This is a known conflict of interest that degrades Anandtech's credibility by highlighting it. At least in the past the articles, these conflicts were pointed out regarding Bapco's shaky past.Daeros - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
Anandtech's quality has been on a continuous downward slide, including increasing Intel/Nvidia bias, ever since Anand left. The site looks and sounds like it's written by children now - especially including comments the editorial staff post in comments sections and on twitter.Eris_Floralia - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
Hey what about my AndreiDigitalFreak - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
While I would agree that the quality is not near as good as it was when Anand was around, I don't see any bias.PeachNCream - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link
Read literally anything written about a Killer NIC.rrinker - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
Seems like this article only compares Intel systems to other Intel systems - so what's the problem? Other than, of course, this article does not agree with some personal bias of yours, therefore all of Anandtech is now not credible, etc. A little extreme reaction don't you think? But such is the way witht he extremism in EVERYTHING these days. Social media has destroyed any chance for critical thinking. Anandtech does an article that's positive towards Intel, OMG BIASED, They hate AMD. They write a different article that's positive towards an AMD product - OMG BIASED! Why the hate on Intel?Irata - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
Yup, using a benchmark by Bapco in which no chip company besides Intel seems to have confidence does leave a rather bad taste.nVidia, AMD and VIA all left the consortium back in 2011 and prior to that Bapco was found to have modified their benchmarks in a way that favored Intel CPU
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
SYSmark 2018 is one of several tools we use in this article. It is certainly not the only tool we use, and it's not a tool we use in all situations (e.g. architecture deep dives). Meanwhile for SFF PCs in particular, its power measurement capabilities are pretty handy to have. Plus the only other systems we're comparing it to are all Intel-based anyhow.MDD1963 - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link
If BAPCO SYSMark was developed by Intel engineers, this would seem more an issue if/when comparing Intel systems to AMD, and not really an issue when comparing all Intel systems...mammothboy - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
The Realtec NICs may be a blessing for use with Windows Server (Intel has a nasty habit of not providing drivers for many of their NICs). Having two will let you set up a team there (perhaps to use as a AD/DNS server) or use as a firewall/router (not that I'd use Windows Server for either).I've generally had good luck with Realtec with Windows Server and PFSense.
eastcoast_pete - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
Thanks Ganesh! Two comments, one question - question first:Was your choice of a SATA SSD based on the ability of the ZBOX to support (not support) an NVMe SSD, or based on what parts were available?
As a comment, use of slower vs. faster storage (SATA vs NVMe) will obviously affect a number of performance benchmarks. Why not standardize on one unless the unit tested won't support the better option?
My other comment is about the pricing of the ZBOX (bare bone): not a good value proposition for HTPC use, given that the current i7 NUC is cheaper, with a superior CPU/GPU. The presence of two gigabit ethernet connections in the ZBOX might be a plus in certain situations, but otherwise it's overpriced compared to the NUC.
ganeshts - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
No NVMe SSD support in the CI660 nano. I had to use a SATA drive, and chose the best one available at my disposal from a cost viewpoint (at the time I configured the review sample - sometime in early Q4 2018).You are right about standardizing the storage drive. However, we tend to choose a drive available in retail for a reasonable cost at the time of configuring the review sample. Since we review a system or two each quarter, it becomes difficult to use the same drive across a large number of reviews. That said, you can find that we either use Crucial SATA SSDs (MX200 / BX300) or Samsung / WD NVMe SSDs (950 PRO / WD Black / SanDisk Extreme Pro) unless the sample comes pre-configured with different SSDs by the vendor (eg. - Hades Canyon).
The CI6xx nano platform is suitable for HTPCs, though, the i7 model might be a bit too pricey for that sole purpose. As one of the other commentators noted, Zotac does have i3- and i5- models in the series.
mooninite - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
$865 is $300 too much. Looks like most of this cost is tied up with the use of an i7, which is completely unnecessary in this form factor. CPU power is not the limitation here. The GPU is.I can't see this as a big seller over a NUC.
mooninite - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
Also, I wish Zotac had come out with their AMD mini-pcs with Vega graphics. Such a shame... that would have sold. I wonder why they backed out.Haawser - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
Agreed, I'd rather have a 15W Ryzen 7 3700U in this form factor. Because UHD620 is going to be a severe limitation for anything beyond the most basic low res, minimum settings gaming. Whereas at 720p/med fullscreen, Vega 10 should play pretty much anything.No idea why Zotac don't offer a Ryzen APU version. Intel 'discounts' maybe ? Or rather, threats of removing them if Zotac don't play ball ? Wouldn't put it past them to offer 'inducemets' like that. Their history being what it is.
lukethedrifter - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
There are i3 and i5 versions as well, ci620 and ci640 respectively.This is a niche product for those who want something NUC-sized but fanless, for which there are relatively few options.That's the selling point, not that it's price competitive with regular NUCs.
Beaver M. - Monday, April 29, 2019 - link
Or an Nvidia Shield, which is still the best and cheapest way to get what an HTPC is supposed to do.mikato - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
Noise question here... Ganesh, you said you were disappointed in the fan noise of the Intel NUC8i7BEH though I didn't see much detail. How bad was it (idle and when streaming something), and is this ZBOX far better noise-wise because it's fanless?ganeshts - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
The Bean Canyon NUC's fan is problematic because it is small and high-pitched when there is sudden load on the CPU. At idle, not that much. But, network streaming and even Kodi playback sometimes makes the unit hot enough for the fan to turn on. It is audible from 10 ft away, particularly during quiet scenes in the movie. The ZBOX noise is inaudible at that range - so, for the HTPC user who isn't very picky, it might work.That said, there are some passive chasses for the Bean Canyon NUCs in the market. Those might be worth a look. However, that is not a 'ready-out-of-the-box' solution.
mikato - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link
Thanks! Please keep include noise as a concern in these mini PCs.Samus - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link
They could have shaved like $200 off the price going with a i5-8350U, which is essentially 98% as fast across the board because the i7 can only hit 4GHz on 1 active core.snakyjake - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link
How does this compare to Intel NUC for HTPC?