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
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.