IDF 2014: Intel Shows Core M 5Y70 Performance Numbers

Manufacturer: Intel

Core M 5Y70 Early Testing

During a press session today with Intel, I was able to get some early performance results on Broadwell-Y in the form of the upcoming Core M 5Y70 processor.

View Full Size

Testing was done on a reference design platform code named Llama Mountain and at the heart of the system is the Broadwell-Y designed dual-core CPU, the Core M 5Y70, which is due out later this year. Power consumption of this system is low enough that Intel has built it with a fanless design. As we posted last week, this processor has a base frequency of just 1.10 GHz but it can boost as high as 2.6 GHz for extra performance when it's needed.

Before we dive into the actual result, you should keep in mind a couple of things. First, we didn't have to analyze the systems to check driver revisions, etc., so we are going on Intel's word that these are setup as you would expect to see them in the real world. Next, because of the disjointed nature of test were were able to run, the comparisons in our graphs aren't as great as I would like. Still, the results for the Core M 5Y70 are here should you want to compare them to any other scores you like.

First, let's take a look at old faithful: CineBench 11.5.

View Full Size

UPDATE: A previous version of this graph showed the TDP for the Intel Core M 5Y70 as 15 watts, not the 4.5 watt listed here now. The reasons are complicated. Even though the Intel Ark website lists the TDP of the Core M 5Y70, Intel has publicly stated the processor will make very short "spikes" at 15 watts when in its highest Turbo Boost modes. It comes to a discussion of semantics really. The cooling capability of the tablet is only targeted to 4.5-6.0 watts and those very short 15 watt spikes can be dissipated without the need for extra heatsink surface...because they are so short. SDP anyone? END UPDATE

With a score of 2.77, the Core M 5Y70 processor puts up an impressive fight against CPUs with much higher TDP settings. For example, Intel's own Pentium G3258 gets a score of 2.71 in CB11, and did so with a considerably higher thermal envelope. The Core i3-4330 scores 38% higher than the Core M 5Y70 but it requires a TDP 3.6-times larger to do so. Both of AMD's APUs in the 45 watt envelope fail to keep up with Core M.

Continue reading our preview of Intel Core M 5Y70 Performance!!

The next two tests, 3DMark Ice Storm and SunSpider, are interesting in that they are cross platform. This allows comparison between results from tablets, both Android and iOS.

View Full Size

The test was run on Chrome on the Android tablets, Safari on the iPad Air, and in Internet Explorer on the Windows 8.1 Core M 5Y70 tablet. The SunSpider Javascript benchmark is 4.6x faster than the Tegra K1 SoC and 3.4x faster than the highly optimized JS setup in Safari on the Apple A7 SoC. 

View Full Size

The overall score for the Core M 5Y70 is 47% faster than the next competitor, the Tegra K1. Intel's own Atom Z3745 (Bay Trail) is well behind, with the 5Y70 getting a 237% advantage.

View Full Size

Breaking this down into its components, the graphics performance scales nearly in line with the overall results. The Core M 5Y70 is 39% faster than the Tegra K1 and 300% faster than the Atom Z3745. 

View Full Size

Finally, looking at the CPU side of the equation in the physics subtest, that advantage grows to 66% for the Core M 5Y70 over the Tegra K1 and 91% over the Atom Z3745.

To be fair, these SunSpider and 3DMark Ice Storm results aren't perfect and the Core M devices are not exactly going up against the same category of tablets you'll find the Tegra K1 and Atom Z3745 in. But the comparisons are interesting and they are the ones we had on hand while at IDF to write this up. 

View Full Size

Intel claims that tablets like this reference design, hitting thickness of 7mm or so, will be able to offer up these levels of performance while maintaining 9+ hours of standard consumer usage. Though the units that we tested and used today were hand built, reference platforms, Intel has spent a lot of time getting things right. I have to admit that the total package looks compelling and, having been hands on with a couple of retail-ready units from Lenovo at IDF, I'm ready to buy in to the advantages of Broadwell-Y and Core M. 

View Full Size

Even more impressive is the size of the system board powering these machines - you are looking at it, above, in its entirety. The green package is the Core M 5Y70 Broadwell-Y processor (and PCH) with the rest of the components consisting of system memory, IO controllers, and connectivity. Seeing it in person really drives home the feat of getting that kind of system level performance in such a small, efficient space.

Intel claims that retail sales of partner systems will be begin in October. I'm looking forward to getting these platforms in our office to run through the full gamut of benchmarks and user experience testing.

Video News

September 9, 2014 | 09:39 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

15W in a tablet? What.

September 9, 2014 | 11:58 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

There is an update posted on this. Give it a look!

September 9, 2014 | 10:20 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Llama mountain and broadwell y sku is 4.5w tdp, not 15w; fits in fanless tablet no problem

September 9, 2014 | 11:59 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

See the same update above. :)

September 9, 2014 | 10:24 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Quite impressive!

September 9, 2014 | 10:30 PM - Posted by Anonymous_not t...

Wow. I wonder what the eventual msrp's for these machines are going to be. I assuming closer to $1k than not??

Still impressive nonetheless. Had higher hopes for the K1 chip. Did not expect that.

September 11, 2014 | 05:46 PM - Posted by DIYEyal

That's very impressive performance for a 4.5W chip, but it is just a CPU with integrated graphics, not a full SoC, it doesn't have the rest of the components an SoC has an integrated modem, WiFi module, a camera ISP, and a lot more. So by not having these inside the chip it's a bit problematic to compare it's performance per watt when it needs separate chips for it. Also that would require a larger PCB, and for tablets that would mean less space for a larger battery. I think if Intel wants to take over the tablet market they need to do it like other ARM SoC vendors do, put as much as possible inside the chip so it will actually be an SoC.
To be fair they have a dedicated audio processing unit inside instead of tasking it to the CPU, so that's a step in the right direction. But the way I see it they should integrate a WiFi module (in the reference tablet they showed in IDF they were using a broadcom chip, LTE I understand why they didn't necessary put it, because there will be a WiFi only SKUs)

I still want it, badly!
I wonder how it performs with Intel's binary translator for apps that do not have native x86 support (Intel is claiming 25% loss, but I fear it's at specific scenarios and it will be higher in the real world).

September 11, 2014 | 06:10 PM - Posted by larsoncc

Another useful point of comparison would be the current lineup of tablet processors this is going to replace, like the i5-4210Y, which I happen to have in my Dell Venue Pro 11. This system scores 29,761 in Ice Storm Unlimited, with 35,701 in graphics and 18,810 in physics. This is while plugged in, throttling definitely occurs on battery. So the new Core M is much faster than its predecessor... And doesn't need a fan like it's predecessor.

My current tablet can play Left 4 Dead 2 and many other games, these new ones should do quite nicely.

This is definitely a higher end part though. It'll be targeted at devices north of $650 for sure.

September 15, 2014 | 05:16 PM - Posted by Xukanik

Does anyone know what the exact TDP on the K1 is?
From searching it looks at 5W so almost the same.

Also I wonder how it compares in benchmarks made for ARM architecture.

September 23, 2014 | 09:17 AM - Posted by Willard (not verified)


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.