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 Multi-Threaded Results
Looking at a multi-threaded run of Cinebench, the devices which will perform the best are going to need to have enough thermal headroom to keep all of the cores working at a good pace. All of these devices have four logical cores mapped to two physical cores via Hyperthreading, all of which are run at maximum load for the duration of this test.
The Core i5 once again has no issues maintaining its high CPU frequency, even though the overall SoC temperature does get higher than the single-threaded run. The Dell Venue 11 Pro tablet though starts off really reaching for the stars, but quickly must throttle back until it finds a consistent range that allows it to stay within its cooling constraints. The Yoga 3 Pro is similar, but quickly falls back due to the 65°C limit placed on the processor by the manufacturer. The ASUS UX305 performs just as well in this test as the last, with a very consistent CPU frequency, despite the temperatures getting a bit higher than the last run.
When it comes to average CPU frequency, both the Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro and the Dell Venue 11 Pro once again end up falling behind the ASUS and its much lower turbo speed in this test, though not by a huge margin. The ASUS averages the highest CPU frequency of the Core M contenders just like in the single-threaded workload, with the Lenovo less than 100MHz behind it, and the Dell Venue a ways back again. Neither of the 5Y71 devices turbo much over the 5Y10 in this test though.
Looking at the temperatures, you can see just how conservative Lenovo has been with the Yoga 3 Pro. The overall SoC temperature is quite a bit lower than all of the other devices when the device is under load. The active cooling and low SoC temperatures help the Yoga 3 Pro to keep a cool exterior to the device.
Now we come to the end result of this workload. The 5Y10 device handily outperforms both of the higher ranked models. Unsurprisingly it comes no where near the Core i5, but looking at the CPU frequency graph really demonstrates why it scores higher. Both of the 5Y71 have a lower average score, but unlike the single-threaded result, neither of them can sustain a CPU frequency past the frequency of the ASUS very much.
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.