OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core M-5Y70 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£250PassMark multi-core score:1890N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.6 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1234TDP (Thermal design power):4.5 W

Intel Core M-5Y70 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 6 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.0/10

Overall score

Score
6.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
Score components

40%

3.5

Technical score

25%

8.0

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 76% of processors
6.9

Value for money

Value for money
6.9/ 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 75% of models
Score components

70%

6.0

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 75%
3.5

Technical score

Technical score
3.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

60%

2.5

Performance

18%

4.5

Architecture

10%

3.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.4

Power & Thermal

4%

6.3

Platform

1%

6.1

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 96%
8.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 72% of models

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (6)
5 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 72%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £250
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core M-5Y70

Based on 5 · 1

Reviewers praise its cool running and battery life, but question the conditions it was tested under.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core M-5Y70

Technical score
Technical score
3.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components:

60%

2.5

Performance

18%

4.5

Architecture

10%

3.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.4

Power & Thermal

4%

6.3

Platform

1%

6.1

Integrated graphics

3.5
Reviews score
8.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.9/ 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 75% of models
Score components:

70%

6.0

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

6.9
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1234
This processor uses the FCBGA1234 CPU socket, which is older than that of 94.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 88.2% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
2.6 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.6 GHz which is lower than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.1 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.1 GHz which is lower than that of 98.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
1,890
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 1,890 in PassMark, which is lower than 95.2% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 85.4% of processors and equal to that of 14.5% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to that of 14.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3/LPDDR3
This processor supports DDR DDR3/LPDDR3, which is older than that of 86.6% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.7% of processors and equal to 10.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 92.2% of processors and equal to 6.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 5300
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 5300 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 63.4% of processors and equal to that in 0.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.1% of processors and equal to 20.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
100 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 100 MHz which is lower than that of 99.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VP8 (HW decode)
This processor supports VP8 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 77.5% of processors and equal to 0.6% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
4.5 W
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
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)
6 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 6 W which is lower than that of 98.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 6 W
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core M-5Y70 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 90% lower base power
    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
  • 90.6% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    6 W vs 64 W
  • 53.7% smaller die size
    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
  • 19.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 72% of models

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    5 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.0 vs 6.7
  • 90% lower TDP
    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
    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
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 19.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 72% of models

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    5 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.0 vs 6.7
  • 53.7% smaller die size
    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
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 90% lower base power
    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
  • 90.6% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    6 W vs 64 W
  • 90% lower TDP
    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
    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
  • 90% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (521 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    521 vs 5,209
  • 83.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,890 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,890 vs 11,469
  • 54.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,153 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,153 vs 2,558
  • 40.9% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 66.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (521 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    521 vs 1,535
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 4.8% worse value for money
    Intel Core M-5Y70 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.95 vs 7.3).
    6.95 vs 7.29
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 6 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2014 vs 2020).
    September 2014
    2014 vs 2020
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1234 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1234 vs FP5
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 90% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (521 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    521 vs 5,209
  • 83.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,890 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,890 vs 11,469
  • 40.9% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 54.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,153 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,153 vs 2,558
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 66.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (521 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    521 vs 1,535
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 38% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (210.9 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    210.89 vs 340.075
  • 20 lower clock multiplier
    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
    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
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    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
    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
    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
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Broadwell vs Kaby Lake).
    Broadwell vs Kaby Lake
  • 73.7% fewer transistors
    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
  • 50% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 45.4% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Older PCIe version
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    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
    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
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VP8 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    VP8 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

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

8.0
PC Perspective
≈ estimated
10/11/2014
Hands-on review · power measurement and 3DMark tests
Verdict
Intel Core M-5Y70 is slower than the previous generation but far more power efficient, a good fit for web browsing and light use, not heavy work.
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.2
notebookcheck.net
✓ explicit
28/11/2014
Gaming benchmark · Thin 2-in-1s
Verdict
The Intel Core M-5Y70 runs older games at modest settings on thin 2-in-1s, but demanding titles like Crysis 3 drop to a few frames per second.
8.0
legitreviews.com
≈ estimated
10/09/2014
Hands-on test · Reference tablet
Verdict
The Intel Core M-5Y70 is a fanless chip that ran fast on Intel's reference tablet, but its retail performance is still unknown.
8.2
notebookcheck.com
✓ explicit
14/11/2014
Gaming benchmark · Thin 2-in-1s
Verdict
The Intel Core M-5Y70 handles light games at moderate settings, but its HD 5300 graphics trail a Core i5 and demanding titles manage only a few frames per second.
8.0
hwupgrade.it
≈ estimated
11/09/2014
Preview test · Fanless tablets
Verdict
The Intel Core M-5Y70 runs fanless in thin tablets and posts strong early benchmarks, but final speed depends on each maker's power setting.
8.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
16/09/2014
Benchmark test · Fanless tablets
Verdict
The Intel Core M-5Y70 is a fanless chip for tablets, roughly three times faster than an Atom in 3DMark, though its speed depends on the maker's power settings.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core M-5Y70

  • Extremely low power consumption (4.5W TDP) allowing for significantly improved battery life in mobile devices
  • Enables ultra-thin and light laptop designs, often under 9mm, due to its small form factor and low thermal requirements
  • Capable of passive (fanless) cooling, leading to silent operation in many tablets and hybrid devices
  • Strong burst performance that is on par with Haswell i5 processors for short, single-threaded tasks like web browsing and opening apps
  • Improved AES encryption performance compared to previous generations, benefiting cryptographic applications
  • Sufficient for everyday productivity tasks such as word processing, 1080p video playback, and light office work

What customers don't like about Intel Core M-5Y70

  • Aggressive thermal throttling under sustained load, causing significant performance drops as the chip heats up
  • Weak multi-threaded performance compared to standard laptop processors (like Core i5/i7), making it unsuitable for heavy multitasking or video editing
  • Poor gaming capabilities; even low-end games may run at unplayable frame rates due to TDP limits on the integrated graphics
  • Performance is highly dependent on the manufacturer's TDP configuration (e.g., Lenovo's 3.5W 'TDP-down' setting in the Yoga 3 Pro)
  • Now considered obsolete for modern demanding applications, showing its age in software like newer Windows versions or complex web apps

Verdict

The Intel Core M-5Y70 is an ultra-low-voltage dual-core processor from the Broadwell-Y series, built on a 14nm process with a minimal 4.5W TDP. It features a base clock of 1.1 GHz that can boost up to 2.6 GHz, alongside 4 MB of L3 cache, Hyper-Threading for four simultaneous threads, and integrated Intel HD Graphics 5300. Its primary advantages are extreme power efficiency and low heat generation, enabling ultra-thin, fanless 2-in-1 laptop and tablet designs with respectable short-burst performance for office tasks. However, its performance significantly degrades under sustained heavy workloads due to strict thermal and power limits, and it lacks the power for demanding gaming or professional video editing.

Compare Intel Core M-5Y70 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-5Y70 and other processors

No results found