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 ESTPCMark 8 Creative Results
The Creative suite for PCMark changes the workloads out a bit, and is overall a much longer benchmark. Creative includes web browsing, photo editing, video editing, group video chat, media transcoding, and gaming workloads, so like the previous test the higher resolution of the Yoga 3 Pro will bring its scores down compared to the 1080p of all of the other devices. Like PCMark 8 Home, the work features high demand followed by low demand.
The Core i5 performs much the same as during the Home benchmark. Clearly the cooling system which is designed to get rid of 15 watts of heat can pretty easily cope with these types of workloads, and it even allows the CPU to turbo quite often to the CPU’s maximum speed of 2.7 GHz. GPU workloads are also no issue for the cooling system. None of the 4.5 watt TDP devices fare so well though, and as with the Home benchmark we see the Yoga 3 Pro having quite good CPU and GPU frequencies. The Dell is limited quite a bit more on temperature, and the ASUS is limited by its lack of maximum turbo frequency.
Looking at the average CPU frequency tells a big story of thermal limitations on the Dell Venue 11 Pro. With an average that is barely over its base of 1.2 GHz, the device spends a significant amount of time below its base frequency. The UX305 keeps its consistency high, with it almost reaching its maximum turbo clock, while the Yoga 3 Pro ends up quite a bit faster.
The GPU story has the ASUS bumping into its maximum GPU speed of 800 MHz, keeping pace with the Dell Venue 11 Pro which can go as high as 900 MHz. The Yoga 3 Pro is over 800 Mhz, here, showcasing its active cooling solution and meaning it is certainly spending time closer to its 900 MHz GPU turbo.
Looking at average temperatures, it is obvious why the ASUS can stay close to its maximum turbo on many workloads. After this one hour benchmark, the CPU average was just over 56°C despite the passive cooling. The active cooled Broadwell-U laptop is a bit higher, and the Yoga 3 Pro kept its average under its 65°C CPU maximum.
The Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro scores the highest of all three Core M devices in this benchmark despite the higher resolution display. On this type of workload where the actual work is much shorter, it keeps its CPU frequency much higher than all of the other Core M devices. The Venue 11 Pro also outscores the UX305 despite its low average CPU frequency. When needed, it was able to turbo well past the 2 GHz maximum of the 5Y10 device.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
110 Comments
View All Comments
jjj - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
You insist on only showing low power CPU results , because putting them properly in context would hurt sales right? God forbid you include laptops....And today somehow you decided to fully ignore AMD too.
Maybe stop working for Intel and serve your readers instead.
MrSpadge - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
Dude.. WTF?This is an evaluation of what Core M is and what this means for devices using it. It's neither a comparison to other device and CPU classes, nor a general recommendation of this product.
Michael Bay - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
AMD just can`t afford a decent shill anymore.THIS is what they go these days.
xthetenth - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
I guess it's easy to confuse discussions of architectural details for devices that have already been reviewed on this very site with articles comparing those devices to other similar devices when the preexisting reviews contain many of the very comparisons you want.Dorek - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
"And today somehow you decided to fully ignore AMD too."Only because the market does.
Refuge - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
This article was never about comparing the CPU's to AMD or anyone. It was about explaining why we are getting awkward results across the board on the performance of these low TDP Intel parts.Nothing to do with AMD, or even the specific OEM's products either, so much as their construction and heat dissipation performance, but it was only in an effort to further explain the varying results of these low TDP Intel chips.
Pissedoffyouth - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
Haha how does a 4.5w CPU for a laptop have anything to do with a 65w+ desktop CPU?Allan_Hundeboll - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
If he was working for intel he would have included amd's "lowpower" cpuname99 - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
Yeah, it's ridiculous.Why isn't there also a comparison against a POWER8 --- that would DEMOLISH this silly little Broadwell-Y.
And they're going on about how great the power dissipation is? Compare it against an ARM M0 and look who has crazy low power dissipation then!
I demand that every future AnandTech review compare any CPU against every other other CPU in the known universe, no matter how irrelevant the comparison...
lilmoe - Wednesday, April 8, 2015 - link
That price tag makes this the most confusing and out-of-place processor from Intel... Microsoft proved that Haswell-U can power an ultra-thin x86 tablet, have mobile SoC comparable battery life, and price it comparably or even lower than Core M products. All that with the added benefit of better performance...OEMs can take advantage of lower pricing on some Broadwell-U processors, and install a better/thinner active cooling solution with the savings. So where does that put Core M other than "luxury" devices that have no need for "real" performance advantages?
Not for me, thanks... Not at THAT price tag.