The Devices and Test

For today's article we have run a sampling of devices through several benchmarks which vary in workload substantially. Some are single-threaded and some are multi-threaded - some emphasize burst performance, and some focus on sustained performance. Some involve the GPU and some do not. During all of the benchmarks, CPU frequencies, GPU frequencies, and processor temperature were logged. The devices are all different as well, and offer different takes on Core M.

The first device is the Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro. This is the same device that we reviewed, and it features a Core M-5Y71 processor which is the very top of the Core M range. Lenovo has chosen to include a fan, so this is the only one of the Core M devices being included that is actively cooled. Being a convertible laptop, Lenovo must be more wary of surface temperatures than a traditional laptop since the Yoga 3 Pro can be used in the hand as a tablet.

The second device is the ASUS Zenbook UX305, which was recently reviewed as well. This features a Core M-5Y10 processor, which is the lowest-end model available. The UX305 is passively cooled and features an entirely aluminum chassis, which helps to dissipate the heat generated. As a laptop, higher surface temperatures can be manageable since the device is normally sitting on the raised feet and not in direct contact with skin.

The third device is the Dell Venue 11 Pro 7000, which also features the top end Core M-5Y71. This is a tablet first and foremost, and is also passively cooled. The Venue features a plastic rear casing, and as a tablet surface temperatures must be taken into consideration.

The final device is the Dell Latitude 14 7000, which is powered by the Core i5-5200U processor. Being a much higher TDP part, but largely the same architecture, will give a reference point on what Broadwell will do when given better cooling. The sample received has only one channel of memory, which will mostly affect the GPU scores. Dell does offer dual-channel memory, so this device can perform higher than the sample that we have.

Overall the Core i5-5200U is much less dynamic than Core M, with a base CPU frequency of 2.2 GHz and boost of 2.7 GHz. If you will notice, the boost is actually less than the Core M-5Y71, so assuming adequate cooling, or short enough workloads, Core M could in theory outperform the i5, which is something we did see on some benchmarks in the Yoga 3 Pro review.

The average computing day for anyone is going to be wildly different depending on what tasks they are performing. A lot of tasks however are very much burst workloads. As an example, browsing the web means loading the page, which is mostly done upfront. These kinds of workloads will play well into what Core M can do. Boost up to the maximum frequency, get the work done, and then fall back down to the base frequency and cool off. This is the epitome of Intel's hurry up and get idle philosophy.

However not every workload is like this. Gaming for example is a lot of consistent work, done over a long period of time, so cooling is the key here to keep performance up.

To sample a wide variety of workloads, I have picked a variety of benchmarks which are both short and long, do burst work or sustained work, and some involve the GPU and others do not.

Cinebench R15 Single-Threaded: This benchmark performs rendering on a single CPU core, so it should showcase higher clock speeds and good single-threaded performance. The benchmark lasts roughly ten minutes.

Cinebench R15 Multi-Threaded: The same benchmark, but the work is performed on all available cores, including hyper-threading. This benchmark is roughly three minutes.

PCMark 8 Home and Creative: Both the Home and Creative suites of PCMark 8 feature a variety of workloads. Home includes workloads for web browsing, writing, gaming, photo editing, and video chat. Creative includes web browsing, photo editing, video editing, group video chat, media transcoding, and gaming workloads. Home is around thirty minutes, and Creative takes about an hour to complete.

TouchXPRT 2014: This benchmark performs beautify photos (add filters, HDR, etc), blend photos, convert videos for sharing, create music podcast, and create slideshow from photos. Each task is timed, and a lower time results in a higher score. This benchmark takes about ten minutes to finish.

3DMark Sky Diver and Cloud Gate: 3DMark is a staple of our reviews. Both run through several graphics and physics tests which work both the CPU and GPU. Sky Diver is the more difficult of the tests. Sky Diver is about five minutes, and Cloud Gate is about three minutes.

3DMark Ice Storm Unlimited: This test is completely off-screen, and allows for comparison of the graphics across devices and even platforms. Being that it is available for smartphones and tablets, it is a much lower demand on the GPU, and completes very quickly on a PC with the entire benchmark being complete in about a minute.

DOTA 2: This incredibly popular online multiplayer battle-arena game is our final benchmark. This is the same workload performed for the DOTA 2 benchmark we have for reviews, only we run it for the full length of the recording. The entire run is around 45 minutes.

The following pages are very graph heavy, with some of the graphs being quite wide to show the sustained performance of the device over the benchmark run. Below is a gallery of all of the images, in order, which can be references as larger images in a separate window.

A note about the graphs. Each benchmark will show an entire run on each device, and then some combined graphs with the individual scores compared against the other devices. Due to the sampling rate, it may appear that some devices finished the benchmark before the others, but this is not always the case. Several of the devices were too loaded to always log to the text file, so they may have less entries, and appear to get the work done quicker if just comparing based on the time scale. The important data on the combined graphs is how each device handles the entire workload versus the others. We have also included the scores from each device to see where they finish the benchmark.

Intel’s Plans for Core M, and the OEMs' Dilemma Cinebench R15 Single-Threaded Results
Comments Locked


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" cpu
  • name99 - 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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now