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
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.