OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core M 5Y10c Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£240PassMark benchmark result:1905N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.0 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1234TDP (Thermal design power):4.5 W

Intel Core M 5Y10c Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.3

Overall score

Score
3.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

90%

3.3

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 99% of processors
3.3

Technical score

Technical score
3.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

60%

2.1

Performance

18%

4.6

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

6.4

Platform

1%

6.3

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 99% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £240

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core M 5Y10c

Technical score
Technical score
3.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

60%

2.1

Performance

18%

4.6

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

6.4

Platform

1%

6.3

Integrated Graphics

3.3
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core M 5Y10c has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

60%

3.3

Overall score

40%

9.3

Price

5.1
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1234
CPU socket
FCBGA1234
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1234 CPU socket, which is older than that of 94.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
N. of physical cores
2
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
CPU threads
4
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 67.4% of processors and equal to 26.5% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
2 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
2 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2 GHz which is lower than that of 99.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 0.8 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 0.8 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x0.8 GHz which is lower than that of 99.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 33.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.2% of processors and equal to that of 29.3% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
L3 cache
4 MB
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 70.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.6% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
L2 cache
0.5 MB
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 84.7% of processors and equal to that of 15.3% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
L1 cache
128 KB
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.8% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L
DDR memory version
DDR3L
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3L, which is older than that of 84.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.2% of processors and equal to 11.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3L-1600 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3L-1600 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3L-1600 MHz, which is lower than that of 97.6% of processors and equal to 0.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 91.7% of processors and equal to 6.4% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 5300
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 5300
â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 5300 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 65.1% of processors and equal to that in 0.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Integrated GPU execution units
24
â–² Better than 49% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.3% of processors and equal to 21.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.265 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.265 (HW decode)
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
This processor supports H.265 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 74.5% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
4.5 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
4.5 W
★ Better than 99% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 4.5 W which is lower than that of 99.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
4.5 W
Base power (PL1)
4.5 W
★ Better than 99% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 4.5 W which is lower than that of 99.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 6 W
Show more

Intel Core M 5Y10c vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 90% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    4.5 W
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (4.5 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    4.5 W vs 45 W
  • 53.7% smaller die size
    Die size
    82 mm²
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (82 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    82 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 90% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    4.5 W
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (4.5 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    4.5 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    95 °C
    â–² Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 53.7% smaller die size
    Die size
    82 mm²
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (82 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    82 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 90% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    4.5 W
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (4.5 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    4.5 W vs 45 W
  • 90% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    4.5 W
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (4.5 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    4.5 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    95 °C
    â–² Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 82% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    1905
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1905 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,905 vs 10,572.5
  • 86.9% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    633
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (633 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    633 vs 4,829
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 55.4% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,115
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,115 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,115 vs 2,500
  • 53.5% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.0 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.0 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 86.7% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    372
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (372 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    372 vs 2,791
  • 57% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    632
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (632 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    632 vs 1,471
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 0.8 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x0.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x0.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 29.2% worse value for money
    Intel Core M 5Y10c has worse value for money than the average processor (5.08 vs 6.6).
    5.08 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 6 years older release date
    Release date
    2014
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2014 vs 2020).
    October 2014
    2014 vs 2020
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1234
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1234 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1234 vs FP4
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 82% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    1905
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1905 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,905 vs 10,572.5
  • 86.9% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    633
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (633 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    633 vs 4,829
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 55.4% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,115
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,115 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,115 vs 2,500
  • 53.5% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.0 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.0 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 86.7% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    372
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (372 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    372 vs 2,791
  • 57% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    632
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (632 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    632 vs 1,471
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 0.8 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x0.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x0.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 37.5% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 20 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    8
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (8 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    8 vs 28
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 80% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    0.5 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 50% less L2 per core
    L2 per core
    0.25 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    128 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    128 KB vs 384 KB
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Broadwell
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Broadwell vs Kaby Lake).
    Broadwell vs Kaby Lake
  • 50% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    4 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    4 MB vs 8 MB
  • 73.7% fewer transistors
    N. of transistors
    1.3 billion
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.3 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.3 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 44.1% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    25.6 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 45.4% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    1,600 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1600 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    1,600 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR3L-1600 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3L-1600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3L-1600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Older PCIe version
    PCIe version
    2.0
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2.0 vs 3.0
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3L
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L vs DDR4).
    DDR3L vs DDR4
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    12
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    12 vs 16
  • 75% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    16 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x4
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.265 (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.265 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.265 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 5 °C lower TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    95 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

B
browser.geekbench.com
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core M-5Y10c Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser
C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core M-5Y10c @ 0.80GHz - CPU Benchmarks
C
cpu.userbenchmark.com
Unknown
Summary of the review
Intel Core M-5Y10c - CPU UserBenchmarks
0
01net.com
09/09/2015
Summary of the review
Acer Aspire Switch 11V Review: The comfort of a hybrid laptop... minus the battery life
(Translated)Show original
C
cpubenchmark.net
2026 (Updated)
Summary of the review
Intel Core M-5Y10c @ 0.80GHz - PassMark Benchmarks
(Translated)Show original
F
forum.tomshw.it
04/04/2016
Summary of the review
OFFICIAL - Teclast X2 Pro - Review and Modding
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshw.it
23/07/2015
Summary of the review
Lenovo ThinkPad Helix 2: An excellent 2-in-1 hybrid for work (Configurations and conclusions)
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshw.it
02/10/2015
Summary of the review
Acer Aspire Switch 11 V: A high-quality hybrid with Core M and a second HDD
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
15/10/2014
Summary of the review
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro - Review and Comparison (Core M-5Y10c)
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
10/02/2015
Summary of the review
Lenovo ThinkPad Helix Series (Core M-5Y10c Review)
(Translated)Show original
F
fwd.nl
06/02/2015
Summary of the review
Dell Latitude 13 7350 Review
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core M 5Y10c

  • High energy efficiency with a very low TDP (4.5W), extending battery life
  • Supports fanless, silent designs due to low heat output in light tasks
  • Capable of handling basic office work, web browsing, and 4K video playback smoothly
  • Good 'burst' performance for opening apps thanks to its turbo boost (up to 2.0 GHz)
  • Affordable option for budget-friendly ultra-portables and 2-in-1 tablets

What we don't like about Intel Core M 5Y10c

  • Aggressive thermal throttling under sustained loads (e.g., software installation, updates)
  • Inadequate for modern gaming or intensive video editing due to weak integrated graphics
  • Significant performance drop-off once heat builds up, leading to system lag
  • Low base clock speed (0.8 GHz) makes it feel underpowered for multitasking beyond basic apps
  • Outdated technology that struggles with demanding modern applications

Verdict

The Intel Core M-5Y10c is an ultra-low-voltage dual-core SoC from the 5th Generation Broadwell-Y architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process for fanless tablets and 2-in-1 laptops. It features a base clock of 800 MHz with a Turbo Boost frequency up to 2.0 GHz, 4 MB of L3 cache, and integrated Intel HD Graphics 5300. Its primary advantages include extreme energy efficiency with a standard TDP of just 4.5 W (configurable down to 3.5 W or up to 6 W), enabling silent, passive cooling and impressive battery life for light productivity. However, performance is a major drawback, as the chip is restricted by its low power limits, making it unsuitable for gaming or heavy multitasking, and it lacks support for newer standards like HDMI 2.0.

Compare Intel Core M 5Y10c with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core M 5Y10c and other processors

No results found