Analyzing Intel Core M Performance: How 5Y10 can beat 5Y71 & the OEMs' Dilemma
by Brett Howse & Ian Cutress on April 8, 2015 8:00 AM ESTCinebench R15 Single-Threaded Results
Cinebench will run the CPU up to 100% load for the duration of the test. As this is the single-threaded run, only one core will be active, which should in theory provide more headroom for that one core than when all cores (physical and virtual) are loaded. There is no burst workload here at all, and sustained single-threaded performance is the key for this test.
The Core i5 does exactly what would be expected for this benchmark. With just a single core loaded, the cooling system has no issues keeping the CPU from throttling. It maintains an extremely consistent CPU frequency during the run. This cannot be said of the two Core M-5Y71 devices though. The Dell Venue 11 Pro starts off with quite a high frequency, but as the temperature increases, the CPU drops in frequency to keep below the threshold of 90°C set on the SoC. At any opportunity, it increases its CPU frequency to try to increase performance, but generally that does not last for very long, and it ends up falling back down. The Yoga 3 Pro on the other hand, has a much lower allowed SoC temperature, with Lenovo locking in on 65°C as their maximum target temperature. This keeps the frequency down.
The ASUS Zenbook has an entirely flat CPU line though. The excellent heat dissipation of the chassis allows it to run for the duration of the benchmark with no throttling at all. It has to be noted though that the maximum CPU frequency is a quite a bit lower than the 5Y71 devices, topping out at 2.0 GHz versus 2.9 GHz for 5Y71. It would be very interesting to see how the UX305 would do with the faster CPU inside, and if it would run into throttling issues as well.
Looking at the average CPU frequency over the run shows that the i5 clearly has the most headroom, which is not surprising. Averages are only part of the story though, with both of the 5Y71 devices being able to jump past the 5Y10's frequency several times during the test.
Looking at temperatures, it's interesting to note that the Dell Venue 11 Pro has the top-tier Core M-5Y71, but it puts that processor in what is the smallest chassis and with a plastic exterior. Consequently it quickly loads up to its maximum temperature and stays there for the duration. The rest of the devices stay much cooler with just a single core loaded.
Here we have the actual benchmark results. On single-threaded workloads, the 5Y71 can and does outperform 5Y10. Despite the average CPU frequencies being lower on both 5Y71 devices, they had enough headroom when necessary to jump past the very consistent 5Y10. None of them can match the Core i5 in this test. It is actually very interesting that the highest scoring Core M in this test has the lowest average CPU frequency.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
110 Comments
View All Comments
zodiacfml - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
A long for this look at the performance Core M. Thanks. Like all nice, popular movies the end is pretty expected after a review from the Asus UX305. It's also good that the Dell is there to provide the scores for no limitation on cooling for long continuous loads.After all this, I don't see any problem. The performance of the Asus is pretty expected as well having a tradional notebook design which is fairly overkill for the SDP/TDP.
I was a PC overclocker many years ago and then realized that underclocking and overclocking at the same time would be ideal. I believe the race to wider CPU dynamic range has become mainstream.
dragonsqrrl - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
"Each model comes with 4MB of L2 cache" On the first page.Shouldn't that be L3 cache?
dananski - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
I love how the Asus tries to draw a piano keyboard in the PCMark 8 Creative graph. Very creative of it.DryAir - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
The temperature x time graphs are all messed up. The lines goes "back" on many ocasions, indicating 2 different temperatures on a same time stamp. You should check the settings on whatever program you are using to generate these graphics.be_prime - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
I just signed up to comment on the same thing -- the graphs are so clearly distorted by some (no doubt well-intentioned) spline/smoothing that much (even most?) of the data we see here may be the product of a spline or interpolation process, and not represent a data measurement. Where the line goes "back", as DryAir pointed out, it implies time travel.That's a very big miss for a site that I've considered to be thoughtful and authoritative. The approach you took here presents false and interpolated data and obscures the quality of your research. Don't let the goal of an attractive graph ruin the whole point of the graph: showing the data.
These graphs are obviously impossible due to the spline/interpolation used, and should be replaced by a scatter plot or normal line graph.
Brett Howse - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
As I mentioned on the Devices and Test page, sometimes the devices were very heavily loaded and they were not able to log consistently. Sometimes they would log twice in the same second, but with slightly different values. One log would be time 0:00:01:05, and another would log 0:00:01:95 (for instance), but both would be truncated to the same second. Unfortunately that's just the limit of the software, since it only logs time to the nearest second. A second can be a lot of time for a CPU.be_prime - Thursday, April 9, 2015 - link
That's fine because those data points represent measurements.The problem here is you've used interpolated splines/curves which, in this case, actually show impossible or false information: the curve leaning "left" implies that the x-axis (time) is decreasing: that's time travel, and it'd be a bigger story than the Core M for sure, right?
Also recognize that if you're gathering data points, but drawing a line, you're always implicitly creating an interpolation between those points (at least in viewers minds). Usually, it doesn't matter so much. Here, the resulting lines are false, and I think Anandtech is a better publication than that.
As it stands, the interpolation/smoothing on your graphs implies time travel. Respectfully: please correct this (or, patent the relevant technology and profit!). If you're going to make your graphs look "pretty" and don't care if they're correct, I can't trust your results.
DryAir - Friday, April 10, 2015 - link
Sarcastic time travel jokes aside, I agree that you should change it somehow. Perhaps just change the data points to be connected to a straith line, instead of a smoothed one. Right now its looking very amateuristic, not matching an otherwise great and highly technical review.Brett Howse - Friday, April 10, 2015 - link
Ice Storm was the worst offender so I've re-generated the graphs with straight lines. There just was not enough data points on that one because it was so short.gw74 - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
I am furious that OEMs are using Core M in ultrabooks. It is the solution to a problem which does not exist. The Samsung Series 9 / ATIV 9 Plus use full fat i5 and i7 ULVs and the 2 tiny fans hardly ever come on. when they do, they sound like mice whispering. and huge battery life.Core M is not progress when used in the ultrabook factor. it is a step backwards and a ripoff.