Introduction and Setup Impressions

Over the last couple of years, mini-PCs in the ultra-compact form factor (UCFF) have emerged as one of the bright spots in the troubled PC market. ECS made their entry in the market through the LIVA. Despite being an innovative product in the mini-PC space, it did suffer from a few questionable devisions with respect to the chassis design. The placement of the USB ports was not user-friendly, and the unit didn't appear sturdy either. ECS has iterated fast and put out an updated version (with a different chassis and motherboard design as well as a few tweaked internals) in the form of the LIVA X. The following gallery from ECS provides more insight into the LIVA X, and the picture that follows compares it against the LIVA.

Note that the USB ports in the LIVA X are in a more accessible location compared to the LIVA. We also have an additional USB 2.0 port, which is definitely welcome. On the downside, the unit is no longer powered by a micro-USB connector. Instead, we have a wall-wart rated for 36 W (12V @ 3A). The presence of a mSATA slot as well as an additional USB port drive up the maximum possible power consumption, justifying a more powerful adapter.

The specifications of our ECS LIVA X review configuration are summarized in the table below.

ECS LIVA X Specifications
Processor	Intel Celeron N2808 (2C/2T x 1.58 GHz, 22nm, 1MB L2, 4.5W TDP, 3W SDP)
Memory	4GB DDR3-1333
Graphics	Intel HD Graphics
Disk Drive(s)	Toshiba THGBMBG9D1KBAIL eMMC 64 GB
Networking	1x Gigabit Ethernet, 1x1 802.11n/Bluetooth mPCIe
Audio	Capable of 5.1/7.1 digital output with HD audio bitstreaming (HDMI)
Operating System	Retail unit is barebones, but we installed Windows 8.1 Pro x64
Pricing (As configured)	$250
Full Specifications	ECS LIVA X Specifications

The ECS LIVA X kit doesn't come with any pre-installed OS, but does come with a CD containing the drivers. It would be nice to have a (read-only) USB key instead of the CD.

In the table below, we have an overview of the various systems that we are comparing the ECS LIVA X against. Note that they may not belong to the same market segment. The relevant configuration details of the machines are provided so that readers have an understanding of why some benchmark numbers are skewed for or against the ECS LIVA X when we come to those sections. A point to note is that all the PC configurations listed below are completely passive solutions.

Comparative PC Configurations
Aspect	ECS LIVA X	ECS LIVA XECS LIVAZotac ZBOX CI540 nanoZotac ZBOX CI320 nanoLogic Supply Core-ML320Zotac ZBOX CA320 nano
CPU	Intel Celeron N2808	Intel Celeron N2808
GPU	Intel HD Graphics	Intel HD Graphics
RAM	DDR3 4GB 9-9-9-24 @ 1333 MHz	DDR3 4GB 9-9-9-24 @ 1333 MHz
Storage	Toshiba THGBMBG9D1KBAIL eMMC 064GE2 (64 GB; eMMC v5.0-compatible)	Toshiba THGBMBG9D1KBAIL eMMC 064GE2 (64 GB; eMMC v5.0-compatible)
Wi-Fi	Ralink RT3290 (1x1 802.11n - 150 Mbps)	Ralink RT3290 (1x1 802.11n - 150 Mbps)
Price (in USD, when built)	$250	$250

Performance Metrics - I

The ECS LIVA X was evaluated using our standard test suite for low power desktops / industrial PCs. We revamped our benchmark suite last year after the publication of the Intel D54250WYK NUC review. We reran some of the new benchmarks on the older PCs also, but some of them couldn't be run on loaner samples. Therefore, the list of PCs in each graph might not be the same.

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. The Bay Trail-M processor is not as powerful as the Core-U processor in the Logic Supply Core-ML320. The main devices to compare against in a similar price range are the Zotac ZBOX CA320 / CI320 nano and the ECS LIVA. The Celeron N2808 is an upgrade over the N2806 that was in our ECS LIVA sample, thanks to a slight bump up in the base frequency. However, the benchmark numbers against the Celeron N2930-equipped ZBOX CI320 nano are not positive, becase the N2930 happens to be a quad-core solution.

Miscellaneous Futuremark Benchmarks

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.

The observations we had for the PCMark 8 benchmarks hold true for the other test cases also.

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 LIVA X is better than the LIVA, but loses out to the quad-core solution in the ZBOX CI320 nano.

7-Zip

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.

TrueCrypt

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 Avoton and Rangeley, even the lowly Atom series has gained support for AES-NI. Unfortunately, the Celeron N2808 doesn't support AES-NI. TrueCrypt, a popular open-source disk encryption program can take advantage of the AES-NI capabilities. Its 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 ECS LIVA X and how it would compare with other select PCs. This is a purely CPU feature / clock speed based test.

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.

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 LIVA X is better than the LIVA as expected. Surprisingly, the performance of the ZBOX CI320 nano took a hit in this benchmark, and the LIVA X surprisingly pulled ahead.

Networking and Storage Performance

We have recently started devoting a separate section to analyze the storage and networking credentials of the units under review. 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 eMMC used in the LIVA X is better than the one we saw getting used in the original LIVA. Even though the storage bandwidth numbers are quite a bit lesser than what even hard drives can provide, they are no match for the proper SSDs in the other passive models. Thankfully, the device does have a mSATA slot and consumers can opt to add their own drives if they so desire.

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 drywall (as in a typical US building). A wired client (Zotac ID89-Plus) 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.

First of all, the Ralink chipset used by ECS is a 1x1 2.4GHz-only 802.11n mPCIe card. It actually comes in with the worst wireless networking performance amongst the various passive PCs that we have evaluated before. At similar price points, other vendors are able to offer 802.11ac mPCIe cards. So, ECS has some fixing to do in this aspect.

HTPC Credentials

Given the ECS LIVA X's fanless nature and the presence of Intel HD Graphics, we expect most purchasers to use it as a media playback machine / HTPC. Given the specifications, it is quite clear that we are not looking at a madVR capable machine, but one targeted at the entry-level / average HTPC user or someone looking for a HTPC to put in a second or third room (non-primary HTPC). There are two HTPC aspects that we will explore in this section, one related to network streaming (OTT services), and the other related to local file playback. Prior to that, we have a small sub-section dealing with refresh rate accuracy.

Refresh Rate Accurancy

AMD and NVIDIA have historically been able to provide fine-grained control over display refresh rates. The default rates are also quite accurate. Intel used to have an issue with 23 Hz (23.976 Hz, to be more accurate) support, but that was resolved with the introduction of Bay Trail and Haswell. As expected, the ECS LIVA X has no trouble with refreshing the display appropriately in the 23 Hz setting.

The gallery below presents some of the other refresh rates that we tested out. The first statistic in madVR's OSD indicates the display refresh rate.

Network Streaming Efficiency

Evaluation of OTT playback efficiency was done by playing back our standard YouTube test stream and five minutes from our standard Netflix test title. Using HTML5, the YouTube stream plays back a 720p encoding, while Adobe Flash delivers a 1080p stream. Note that only NVIDIA exposes GPU and VPU loads separately. Both Intel and AMD bundle the decoder load along with the GPU load. The following two graphs show the power consumption at the wall for playback of the HTML5 stream and the Adobe Flash stream in Mozilla Firefox (v 35.0). The Flash plugin version used for benchmarking was 16.0.0.257. GPU load was around 36.04% for the HTML5 stream and 23.34% for the Flash stream.

Netflix streaming evaluation was done using the Windows 8.1 Netflix app. Manual stream selection is available (Ctrl-Alt-Shift-S) and debug information / statistics can also be viewed (Ctrl-Alt-Shift-D). Statistics collected for the YouTube streaming experiment were also collected here. GPU load in the steady state for the Netflix streaming case was 3.82%.

The ECS LIVA X easily manages to be the most power efficient of the passively cooled PCs that we have evaluated so far.

Decoding and Rendering Benchmarks

In order to evaluate local file playback in the ECS LIVA X, we concentrate on EVR-CP and Kodi. We already know that EVR works quite well even with the Intel IGP for our test streams. The decoder used was LAV Filters bundled with MPC-HC v1.7.7 for EVR-CP and hardware accelerated decoding enabled (default configuration) for Kodi 14.0

ECS LIVA X - Decoding & Rendering Performance
Stream	EVR-CP		XBMC
	GPU Load (%)	Power (W)	GPU Load (%)	Power (W)
480i60 MPEG2	52.95	5.87	30.87	5.07
576i50 H264	48.12	5.81	56.95	5.81
720p60 H264	58.44	6.57	66.45	6.31
1080i60 MPEG2	85.72	7.96	82.44	7.21
1080i60 H264	95.96	8.62	86.87	8.09
1080i60 VC1	92.40	8.27	83.84	7.95
1080p60 H264	75.15	7.61	67.37	6.65
1080p24 H264	30.91	5.52	26.54	5.05
4Kp30 H264	81.67	7.83	45.93	6.05

The number of streams / decoder - renderer combinataions with issues is lower than what we had with the ECS LIVA - probably due to the slight bump in the clock speeds.

In our Zotac ZBOX CI320 nano review, I had erroneously mentioned that HD audio bitstreaming was not working for Bay Trail-M based systems. This turned out to be a pilot error - HD audio bitstreaming works if the drivers are directly downloaded off Intel's website.

In addition to usage as a HTPC / media playback machine with Windows 8 / 8.1, OpenELEC is also well supported for users who don't want to pay the OS tax. The ECS LIVA X is a nice little media playback machine with decent enough CPU performance for those who don't have too much 60 fps interlaced content.

Power Consumption and Thermal Performance

The power consumption at the wall was measured with a 1080p display being driven through the HDMI port. In the graphs below, we compare the idle and load power of the ECS LIVA X with other passively cooled PCs evaluated before. For load power consumption, we ran Furmark 1.12.0 and Prime95 v27.9 together. The numbers are not beyond the realm of reason for the combination of hardware components in the machine.

Load power consumptionis slightly higher in the LIVA X, but that is to be expected with the bump in the clock speeds compared to the original LIVA. The LIVA and the LIVA X turn out to be amongst the most power efficient passively cooled PCs that we have evaluated

In order to evaluate thermal performance, we first ran our test for load power consumption and made sure that the unit wasn't getting throttled. In order to determine the efficiency of the cooling system, we first loaded up the CPU alone using just Prime 95 for around 30 minutes. This was followed by addition of the GPU load (FurMark) for another 30 minutes, and then removal of the CPU load for 10 minutes. The system was then left idle. The various clocks in the system as well as the temperatures within the unit are presented below.

One thing to note is that the cores are configured to run at the turbo speed (2.25 GHz) when the system is stressed. Unfortunately, half-way through our CPU + GPU load test, the system started throttling, with the CPU clocks going as low as 1.1 GHz (from 2.25 GHz) and the GPU clocks going as low as 200 MHz (from the 760 MHz loaded state). The drops in the frequency can be directly correlated with the core temperature graphed below at the same time. Even though the CPU doesn't reach the maximum junction temperature of 100 C, ECS has opted for precautionary throttling at 96 C itself.

The throttling was very surprising because ECS has opted for a very thick thermal heat sink (evident in the increased weight of the system) which should potentially perform much better compared to what was in the ECS LIVA. It turned out that the media samples we received had the thermal pads in the wrong place. Customer shipments will shift them a bit to resolve the overheating issue.

Another important aspect to keep note of while evaluating fanless PCs is the chassis temperature. Using Seek Thermal's thermal imager, we observed the chassis temperature after the CPU package temperature reached the steady state value (and immediately after thermal throttling started) in the above graph.

Even though the internal core temperature was close to 100 C, the chassis itself never got too hot to touch. As our thermal imager showed, the maximum external temperature was only 59 C.

Final Words

The ECS LIVA X provided us with an opportunity to see how ECS could improve upon the baseline created by the ECS LIVA. We are happy to see that the LIVA X manages to fix many of the shortcomings without sacrificing any of the advantages brought forward by the LIVA. The misplaced thermal pads were a bit of a downer, but, considering that the LIVA had no thermal throttling issues and the heat sink is physically much better in the LIVA X, we have no doubt that customer shipments will not have any problems on that front.

The absence of SODIMM slots reduce the BOM cost and the eventual end-price for consumers (which is the reason the ECS LIVA X is cheaper than a Bay Trail NUC). A mSATA port makes an appearance for users interested in running Windows 7 (which doesn't have an eMMC driver). The Wi-Fi card came pre-installed, and the unit was good to go right after purchase, unlike the LIVA. The LIVA X provides an additional USB port and they are all in the front panel - that is a good decision considering the typical use case for such mini-PCs. The vertical orientation of the HDMI port also saves some space on the read panel, giving it a more uncluttered look.

The Celeron N2808 has Quick Sync enabled, and this provides some interesting use-cases. The availabiligy of a 64 GB SKU at launch is also welcome. 32 GB is not enough once a couple of Windows updates get installed.

Pricing is the final aspect that we will talk about. The 32 GB eMMC version will have a MSRP of $210, while the 64 GB version we evaluated will come in at $250. This is with 4 GB of RAM, but no OS. $250 is definitely a bit steep when we look at the competition. Particularly, the Zotac CI320 nano PLUS model with Win 8.1 + Bing sells for $252 with the operating system. It has a quad-core CPU and adopts passive cooling, just like the LIVA X. It has the 64 GB storage drive and DRAM replaceable too, in case things go wrong with those components. The WLAN card (1x1 802.11ac) is also better in the CI320 nano compared to the LIVA X (1x1 802.11n). The LIVA X does have 2 GB of RAM extra and a different industrial design (approximately the same volume, though). We still believe pricing must be much lower for better market reception. Other than that aspect, the ECS LIVA X ticks all the right boxes in terms of what users expect out of a passively cooled mini-PC.