Graphics and 3DMark Performance
Obviously the Core M 5Y70 isn't going to blow anyone's mind when it comes to PC gaming, but I think for casual gamers and the occasional retro gaming session, the new Broadwell-Y processor design will do just fine.
The results from 3DMark Ice Storm, targeted at tablets of both Android and Windows variety, shows the Core M 5Y70 slower than the Core i5-4200U in both Graphics and Physics results. While the CPU-based physics testing seems to make sense, the fact that the HD 5300 graphics has 24 EUs while the HD 4400 graphics implementation of the i5-4200U has 20 EUs, and yet the Haswell part is 16% faster in our graphics result is a bit of a letdown. Obviously the TDP limit of the Core M processor is holding back the clock speeds (and thus overall performance) and allowing the Haswell CPU to lead.
The 3DMark Cloud Gate results are really a mirror image of the Ice Storm results when looking at the Core M 5Y70 and Core i5-4200U comparison. The performance delta between the two Intel processors in the Graphics test does grow to 23%. And clearly, from a notebook perspective, the GPU performance of the AMD FX-7600P APU is substantially higher. But even with a 7x increase in available TDP, the AMD part is only 2.5x faster in raw graphics score here.
Looks like both intel and
Looks like both intel and nvidia are pushing for more efficient chips for next year. When do we expect to see the Broadwell based ultrabooks for sale? They certainly look promising compared to older ivy bridge based chips.
This machine is for sale
This machine is for sale already.
If you are asking about the higher wattage Broadwell parts – sometime in early 2015.
For my use scenario I need a
For my use scenario I need a ultrabook with decent performance but longer battery life. I was considering the Dell XPS 13 but if the Core M has the similar performance levels as that of Haswell i5 and improved battery life(even additional 40-50mins matter for me while travelling) then I might wait for Dell to launch a SKU with this cpu instead.
The bit about wanting to see
The bit about wanting to see this processor in a laptop with a much higher capacity battery were my thoughts exactly.
How do the unit costs compare
How do the unit costs compare to the old Haswell parts? It sucks if consumers are paying the same for less performance, but more battery life.
I feel that today’s CPUs are
I feel that today’s CPUs are more than powerful enough for the average user. Especially at ~5 watts, performing close to a ~15 watt part is very impressive. This means that while watching youtube, netflix, browsing the web, or word processing will have great battery life, and good performance.
The tray price is $281 select
The tray price is $281 select models
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_M_microprocessors
Pricing information isn’t
Pricing information isn't available on these parts. Intel's Ark website doesn't list it either.
http://ark.intel.com/products/83612/Intel-Core-M-5Y70-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_60-GHz?q=5y70
I, personally, care more about battery life at a usable performance level for my notebooks. I wouldn't pay MORE for it, but I would pay as much.
ryan is it possible for you
ryan is it possible for you to test against and Beema a6-6310 or a4-6410 apus. Also it seems a little meh for Intels next beast.
This is not even close to
This is not even close to what Intel’s Llama Mountain reference tablet was able to serve up performance wise. Why in the heck did Lenovo put more weight into that crazy hinge gizmo when they could have instead used their weight quota more towards a bigger battery and a better heat dissipating chassis? This has all the signs of bad engineering. There is even a fan internally for the 3.5W chip which shouldn’t be needed at all they knew what they were doing. What they should have done was configure the CPU to the optimal TDP of 6W like Intel recommends and designed accordingly instead of this giving us 3.5W sluggishness and then they would have gotten performance on par or faster than the i5 Haswell chips.
Real letdown, Lenovo! From what I heard, HP did the same thing with their new Envy X2 as well. Intel gave so many free development resources out to their partners and everyone instead opted to go this cheap and dirty route. Hopefully, Lenovo at least had the sense to follow Intel’s design guidelines (and not cut corners for once) with the ThinkPad Helix 2nd Gen due in a couple days from now.
For your information, you
For your information, you should note in the article that Lenovo is using the non-default 3.5 W TDP-down config for the Yoga 3 Pro. This is the reason for the somewhat lunderwhelming performance compared to what Intel had teased a couple months ago. Had Lenovo gone with the default 4.5W or the optimal 6W TDP configurations, the Pro 3 would be a much more powerful system. This is, of course, other flaws such as with thermal transfer in their design.
For your information, you
For your information, you should note in the article that Lenovo is using the non-default 3.5 W TDP-down config for the Yoga 3 Pro. This is the reason for the somewhat underwhelming performance compared to what Intel had teased a couple months ago. Had Lenovo gone with the default 4.5W or the optimal 6W TDP configurations, the Pro 3 would be a much more powerful system. This is, of course, ignoring other flaws such as with thermal transfer in their design.
I’m planning on trying out
I’m planning on trying out the new Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro and I hope it’s performance does not disappoint me. I’m not looking for a powerhouse, just something that can do moderate internet browsing and Steam in the background without stuttering- I have a desktop for everything else. I’m really sick of my old, hot, and heavy laptop from 2008.
$1400 for a laptop to do just
$1400 for a laptop to do just ‘some browsing’ seems rather expensive
On the one hand, comparing
On the one hand, comparing the 5Y70 to the i5 seems fair given the frequency range, IGP, and price, but then on the other hand it’s also fair to compare it to Atom given the power consumption. I’m not sure whether to be impressed or not. If anything, the graphics performance per watt seems more impressive than the CPU performance per watt.
I’m thinking that the Broadwell Atom (Cherry Trail) will be a more impressive upgrade over Bay Trail than Core-M is over Core iX.
There is no broadwell atom
There is no broadwell atom
Performance seems lower in
Performance seems lower in 3DMark than my Haswell Y powered Dell Venue Pro 11. This seems a bit off – was this tested on battery or plugged in? The Intel tablet chips have a fairly wide performance difference on battery. While I think both tests are valid, that’s a difference to be noted.
What I’m interested is
What I’m interested is actually about the future of the top processors for laptops that will come next year. 2 years ago we were here in our office between the option of a laptop with a i7-3820QM or a tower with a Xeon E5-2689. At this time we chose finally both, for understanding the differences. Because of the lower performance of the laptop, we still need the Xeon Workstation sometimes, but the laptop is almost ok for what we need. Do you think there is any chance that the new i7 Broadwell for laptops can have a similar performance of the 2 years old Xeon or Intel will focus on the lower TDP?
Yeah! On battery using the
Yeah! On battery using the most recent Intel drivers, my Haswell tablet gets 27k on Ice Storm! And it’s much higher plugged in. http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/4712367? I just don’t understand these results. i5 4210Y is somehow faster than its successor? Well then OK. I’ll take being able to do more, and charging every 5-6 hours instead of 7-8. That’s insane.
When you did your battery
When you did your battery test and you found that it was drawing 8 watts.. I have to admit that sounds VERY high. My G46VW idles at lower than 8 watts on battery and it’s a full fledged gaming laptop with a full voltage 3840QM CPU. I think some more software optimization needs to happen in Windows to get that number lower on the newer platforms.
Benchmarks returned for the
Benchmarks returned for the Broadwell 5Y70 from different sources seem to be completely inconsistent. FutureMark graphics results that appearing around September 2014 showed a performance of about 2X those listed here. I am not suggesting any error on you part. Indeed, Intel themselves seem to be responsible for this disarray. AnandTech, in their review of the 5Y70, appear to confirm that the reference unit tested used a 6W TDP SoC. The 4.5W chip will be the more likely choice (for reasons of useful battery life and simplified thermal management) in a production context for tablets and other low power computing devices.
One thing is certain – the 5Y70 is looking to be a less impressive part today, both in terms of outright performance and in terms of perf/watt, than it was thought to be just a few months ago. Things may improve with Skylake but ordinary is the best way to describe the Broadwell 5Y70.
Thank you for this review.
Thank you for this review. I’m currently deciding w/n to buy the new 5Y70 MacBook, and I was turned off by the poor Geekbench results that were leaked.
You more or less convinced now me with my usage patterns (no heavy continuous load), the 5Y70 should work well for my needs.