OVERALL

ALTERNATIVES

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

Intel Core M3 6y30 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£240PassMark benchmark result:2172N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.2 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1515TDP (Thermal design power):4.5 W

Intel Core M3 6y30 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.7

▼Worse than 94% of processors

3.7

▼Worse than 93% of processors

?

1.3
Gaming
Gaming
1.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Measures single-core benchmark performance, peak boost clock speeds, and fast L3 cache sizing critical for high frame rates.
When it matters
When you want to play demanding mobile games, 3D titles, or run graphics-intensive apps smoothly.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
30.0%
1.0
PassMark single-core benchmark score
25.0%
1.9
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
20.0%
1.0
CPU boost clock speed
17.0%
1.4
L3 cache
8.0%
1.0
N. of physical cores
1.6
Video editing
Video editing
1.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Assesses multi-core benchmark throughput, total physical core and thread count, and cache bandwidth for rapid video rendering.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this processors meets your specific video editing needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
45.0%
1.6
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
20.0%
1.0
N. of physical cores
20.0%
2.1
CPU threads
15.0%
1.4
L3 cache

No image

No image

Best prices

N/A~ £240

Best rankings

#582inBest mobile CPUs

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core M3 6y30

3.7

Show more

Hide

?

Platform

7.4

Show more

Hide

Brand name

Intel

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

CPU architecture

Show more

Performance

2.6

Show more

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

Threads per core

CPU boost clock speed

CPU base clock speed

Show more

Cache & Architecture

4.8

Show more

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Show more

Memory & PCIe

3.4

Show more

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

N/A

Maximum memory capacity

Show more

Integrated Graphics

6.1

Show more

Hide

Integrated graphics

Integrated GPU model

Integrated GPU execution units

Integrated GPU base frequency

Integrated media encoders/decoders

Show more

Power & Thermal

8.2

Show more

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

Tau (power duration limit)

Configurable TDP

Show more

Intel Core M3 6y30 vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core M3 6y30 better than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

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
88.3% lower boost power
Boost power (PL2)
7 W
★ Better than 97% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (7 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
7 W vs 60 W
44.1% smaller die size
Die size
99 mm²
▲ Better than 89% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (99 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
99 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
Includes crypto acceleration
Cryptographic acceleration
AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ
▲ Better than 80% of models
This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
16.7% more L3 per core
L3 per core
2 MB/core
▲ 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

Includes crypto acceleration
Cryptographic acceleration
AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ
▲ Better than 80% of models
This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA

44.1% smaller die size
Die size
99 mm²
▲ Better than 89% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (99 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
99 mm² vs 177 mm²
16.7% more L3 per core
L3 per core
2 MB/core
▲ 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
88.3% lower boost power
Boost power (PL2)
7 W
★ Better than 97% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (7 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
7 W vs 60 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

Why is Intel Core M3 6y30 worse than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

79.5% lower PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
2,172
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,172 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
2,172 vs 10,572.5
4 fewer CPU cores
N. of physical cores
2
▼ 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
53.3% weaker single-core performance
PassMark single-core benchmark score
1,167
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <1.4k – >4k
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,167 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
1,167 vs 2,500
48.8% lower boost clock
CPU boost clock speed
2.2 GHz
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
2.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
72% lower multi-core score
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
1,354
▼ Worse than 76% of models
Market range: <763 – >14k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,354 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
1,354 vs 4,829
53.3% lower single-core score
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
687
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <561 – >2.7k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (687 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
687 vs 1,471
56.2% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
214
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <282 – >775
This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (214 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
214 vs 489
Lower base clock
CPU base clock speed
2 x 0.9 GHz
▼ Worse than 100% of models
This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x0.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
2x0.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz

22.3% worse value for money
Intel Core M3 6y30 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.37 vs 6.6).
5.37 vs 6.56

5 years older release date
Release date
2015
▼ Worse than 81% of models
Market range: <2k – >2k
This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2015 vs 2020).
September 2015
2015 vs 2020
Older CPU socket
CPU socket
FCBGA1515
▼ Worse than 79% of models
This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1515 vs FP4).
FCBGA1515 vs FP4

79.5% lower PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
2,172
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,172 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
2,172 vs 10,572.5
4 fewer CPU cores
N. of physical cores
2
▼ 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
53.3% weaker single-core performance
PassMark single-core benchmark score
1,167
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <1.4k – >4k
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,167 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
1,167 vs 2,500
48.8% lower boost clock
CPU boost clock speed
2.2 GHz
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
2.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
72% lower multi-core score
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
1,354
▼ Worse than 76% of models
Market range: <763 – >14k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,354 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
1,354 vs 4,829
53.3% lower single-core score
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
687
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <561 – >2.7k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (687 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
687 vs 1,471
56.2% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
214
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <282 – >775
This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (214 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
214 vs 489
Lower base clock
CPU base clock speed
2 x 0.9 GHz
▼ Worse than 100% of models
This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x0.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
2x0.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
4 fewer CPU threads
CPU threads
4
▼ 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
50% lower bus speed
Bus speed
4 GT/s
▼ Worse than 80% of models
Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
50% lower bus transfer rate
Bus transfer rate
4 GT/s
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
19 lower clock multiplier
Clock multiplier
9
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Market range: <16 – >38
This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (9 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
9 vs 28
84.3% weaker overclocked performance
PassMark overclocked benchmark result
2,189
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Market range: <5.1k – >55k
This processor has a lower overclocked performance than the average processor (2,189 vs 13,911). The average processor scores 13,911 in overclocked PassMark.
2,189 vs 13,911

80% smaller L2 cache
L2 cache
0.5 MB
▼ 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
▼ 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
▼ 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
▼ 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
50% smaller L3 cache
L3 cache
4 MB
▼ 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
Less advanced microarchitecture
Microarchitecture codename
Skylake
▼ Worse than 62% of models
This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Skylake vs Kaby Lake).
Skylake vs Kaby Lake

Older DDR support
DDR memory version
DDR3
▼ Worse than 86% of models
This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
DDR3 vs DDR4
6 fewer PCIe lanes
PCIe lane count
10
▼ Worse than 89% of models
Market range: <10 – >30
This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (10 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
10 vs 16
34.9% lower memory bandwidth
Maximum memory bandwidth
29.8 GB/s
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (29.8 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
29.8 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
36.4% lower memory speed
Maximum memory speed
1,866 MHz
▼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1866 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
1,866 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
Lower JEDEC memory speed
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR3-1866 MHz
▼ Worse than 88% of models
This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR3-1866 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
LPDDR3-1,866 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
75% less memory capacity
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
▼ 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, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1
▼ Worse than 88% of models
This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4

Narrower media codec support
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VP9 (HW decode)
▼ Worse than 76% of models
This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
Inferior integrated GPU
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 515
▼ Worse than 81% of models
This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 515 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
Intel HD Graphics 515 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

cnet.com

11/07/2016

Summary of the review

Intel Compute Stick (Core m3) review: The most powerful stick PC yet

The 2016 Intel Compute Stick (Core m3) acts as a powerful, pocket-sized Windows PC, representing a significant performance upgrade over previous Atom-based models. It is ideal for turning any display into a functional computer, offering a great solution for travelers, though limited by its minimal storage. CNETPros include the impressive Core m3 processing speed and the clever inclusion of additional USB ports on the power brick for added connectivity. Cons, however, feature a much higher price point, reduced onboard USB ports on the device itself, and restricted internal storage, according to the review. For the full detailed review, read the article on CNET.

hothardware.com

13/12/2016

Summary of the review

Intel Compute Stick Core m3 Review: Skylake On A Thumbstick

The Intel Compute Stick Core m3 (6Y30) offers a significant performance leap over previous Atom-based models, providing a capable PC experience for daily productivity, web browsing, and 4K media streaming, supported by 4GB of dual-channel RAM. Featuring 64GB of eMMC storage, 802.11ac Wi-Fi, and a clever power adapter that adds two USB 3.0 ports, it serves as a highly capable, portable HTPC or thin-client. However, the $349 price point introduces stiff competition from more powerful NUCs, and the device still struggles with heavy content creation, while the required cable management can make the setup feel cluttered.

pcmag.com

07/09/2016

Summary of the review

Intel Compute Stick (Core m3) Review

The PCMag review characterizes the Intel Compute Stick (Core m3) as a functional, pocket-sized PC capable of handling productivity workloads, representing a significant upgrade over previous, less powerful models. Praised for its class-leading performance and clever design, the device features a compact form factor with three USB 3.0 ports, including two built into the AC adapter. Limitations include the lack of a secondary USB-C port for data, modest 3D graphics performance unsuitable for gaming, and the requirement for wired peripherals during initial setup.

laptopmedia.com

29/03/2026

Summary of the review

Intel Core m3-6Y30 - LaptopMedia Specifications and Benchmarks

The Intel Core m3-6Y30 is a Skylake-based, dual-core, ultra-low-voltage processor designed for fanless, highly portable devices. Pros include a low 4.5W TDP for silent operation and a 0.90 GHz to 2.20 GHz clock range suited for light tasks, web browsing, and 4K media. However, a significant con is that performance drops under sustained loads due to thermal limits, making it unsuitable for heavy multitasking, video editing, or modern gaming. The processor features Intel HD Graphics 515, which is sufficient for basic visual tasks, and it supports up to 16 GB of DDR3L/LPDDR3 RAM. Its 14 nm architecture delivers high efficiency for devices like 12-inch MacBooks and high-end Chromebooks. The m3-6Y30 is an ideal choice for users prioritizing portability and silent operation over raw power. For more details, visit LaptopMedia.

cpubenchmark.net

29/03/2026

Summary of the review

Intel Core m3-6Y30 @ 0.90GHz - CPU Benchmarks

The Intel Core m3-6Y30 is a 14nm Skylake, dual-core SoC designed for fanless, ultra-low-power tablets and 2-in-1 laptops, operating at 0.90 GHz with a 2.20 GHz boost. With an extremely low 4.5 W TDP, the chip prioritizes energy efficiency and silent operation while supporting Hyper-Threading for improved multitasking. Performance is suitable for daily office tasks and light web browsing, yielding a PassMark CPU Mark score of roughly 2,474, which is competitive with older 15 W U-series processors in short bursts. However, the m3-6Y30 is prone to significant thermal throttling under sustained heavy workloads and offers limited performance for creative, CPU-intensive tasks. While integrated HD Graphics 515 supports 4K content, gaming and intensive media editing capabilities are restricted compared to higher-wattage alternatives. For full technical details and benchmark data, visit PassMark Software.

en.techreviewer.de

01/10/2024

Summary of the review

Cube i7 Book Review - Tablet with Intel Skylake M3-6Y30

The Cube i7 Book is a high-performance 2-in-1 Windows 10 tablet featuring an Intel Skylake Core M3-6Y30 processor, 4GB of RAM, and a 10.6-inch Full HD IPS display, serving as a powerful alternative to budget Atom-based devices. Key pros include its high-quality aluminum construction, upgradeable 64GB SSD, and accurate Wacom-compatible touchscreen for artistic work. However, significant cons include poor thermal management with internal temperatures reaching 97°C and awkward speaker placement on the right side, resulting in flat, one-sided audio. Battery life is limited, offering approximately 5 hours of usage from the 4,300mAh battery. Users must also factor in the added cost of purchasing the keyboard and stylus separately. Ultimately, the tablet offers strong performance in an affordable package.

krone.at

22/11/2015

Summary of the review

High-Performance Tablet - Almost at the Goal: Microsoft Surface Pro 4 Under Test

The Microsoft Surface Pro 4 is a refined, high-performance 12.3-inch tablet-laptop hybrid featuring improved, thinner hardware and high-resolution display capabilities. Key enhancements include a highly responsive Surface Pen with 1,024 pressure levels and a redesigned Type Cover with a larger, improved trackpad, although the essential keyboard is sold separately, adding to the high cost. While offering strong performance with Intel Core processors, the device falls short on battery longevity under heavy use and, despite improvements, remains less stable on a lap than traditional laptops.

techreviewer.de

01/10/2024

Summary of the review

Cube i7 Book Review - Tablet with Intel Skylake M3-6Y30

The Cube i7 Book, evaluated by techreviewer.de, is a 10.6-inch Windows 10 tablet featuring a high-quality Samsung Full HD IPS display and an Intel Core m3-6Y30 processor that offers performance significantly higher than Atom-based competitors. Key advantages include Wacom stylus support with palm rejection, a premium aluminum chassis, a user-replaceable M.2 SSD, and capable 4K video playback. However, the device suffers from high operating temperatures (up to 97∘𝐶 internally) due to lack of active cooling, short 5-hour battery life, and poor speaker placement.

techreviewer.de

06/10/2024

Summary of the review

Xiaomi Air 12 Notebook Review - A MacBook Competitor?", "Xiaomi Air 12 Laptop Test - Rivaling the MacBook?

The Xiaomi Air 12 is a budget-friendly, highly portable 12.5-inch laptop with a 12.9 mm aluminum chassis and a bright, high-quality Full HD display. Powered by a fanless Intel Core m3 and 4GB of soldered RAM, it offers a silent, capable experience for office tasks, though it is limited in heavy performance and upgradeability. The device features decent connectivity, including USB-C and HDMI, alongside a quality keyboard, but suffers from average battery life and requires initial setup for English language support.

hardware-mag.de

22/07/2017

Summary of the review

Intel Compute Stick STK2m3W64CC Review

According to the Hardware-Mag review, the Intel Compute Stick STK2M3W64CC (Cedar City) provides a substantial performance increase over Atom-based predecessors by utilizing a Skylake-based Intel Core m3-6Y30 processor and 4GB of dual-channel LPDDR3-1866 RAM. The device is better suited for multitasking and offers improved graphics capabilities with the Intel HD Graphics 515, enabling 4K video support through the HDMI 1.4b port. Storage capacity is improved with 64GB of eMMC, and the power adapter functions as a USB hub, providing extra connectivity options, including USB 3.0 ports. Key pros identified in the review include class-leading performance for a PC stick, significantly upgraded memory and storage configurations, and versatile, high-speed connectivity. Conversely, the device carries a higher price tag than previous models and presents noise from active cooling fan, alongside a somewhat bulky design that may require extension cables.

chip.de

30/08/2016

Summary of the review

Huawei MateBook (HZ-W09) Review

The Huawei MateBook HZ-W09 is a slim, fanless 2-in-1 Windows 10 tablet featuring a premium aluminum unibody, a vibrant 12-inch 2160x1440 display, and a fast side-mounted fingerprint sensor, aiming at a "classy" aesthetic. However, the device's extreme thinness results in limited performance from the 6th-gen Intel Core m processors and short battery life, which often holds up for only 5 to 6 hours in real-world usage. Additionally, the high cost of optional accessories—such as the keyboard folio and MatePen—combined with a limited portfolio of stand angles, reduces its value as a complete notebook replacement. Copy

chip.de

06/05/2016

Summary of the review

Apple MacBook 12-inch 1.1 GHz 2016 (Laptop) Review

The 2016 12-inch MacBook (1.1 GHz) offers an incremental refresh, featuring the same ultra-portable 0.92 kg fanless aluminum design, a high-quality Retina display, and improved performance via Intel "Skylake" Core m3 processors and faster SSDs. Key advantages include improved battery life (roughly 10 hours), better responsiveness for daily tasks, and a new Rose Gold color option. However, the device faces limitations with a single USB-C port, requiring dongles for connectivity, and the 1.1 GHz processor is not suited for heavy, sustained workloads. The shallow "butterfly" keyboard remains polarizing, and the 480p webcam is considered outdated. Positioned as a premium, highly portable device, it represents a niche choice for travelers rather than a productivity powerhouse. Copy

clubic.com

12/10/2016

Summary of the review

Xiaomi Mi Notebook Air 12.5 review: the near-perfect ultrabook

The Xiaomi Mi Notebook Air 13.3 is a premium-built, 1.28 kg, all-aluminium ultrabook offering high-end design at a competitive price point, featuring Intel Core i5 processors, 8GB RAM, and 256GB PCIe NVMe SSDs. It stands out with dedicated NVIDIA GeForce graphics, offering superior performance for light gaming and photo editing, alongside a crisp, high-contrast 13.3-inch Full HD IPS display. User experience highlights include a precise glass trackpad with an integrated fingerprint sensor and versatile connectivity options, such as an HDMI port, which is often missing from similarly thin alternatives. The keyboard provides decent travel with backlighting, although some users may find it slightly shallow. Key drawbacks include underwhelming battery life, typically providing only 4 to 7 hours of real-world use, and the potential for thermal throttling under heavy loads. Additionally, users must often contend with Chinese-language Windows installations, the lack of an official international warranty, and an imported, US-only keyboard layout.

pc-builds.com

22/10/2026

Summary of the review

Processors - Intel Core m3-6Y30 0.90 GHz Mobile - PC Builds

The Intel Core m3-6Y30 is a 14nm, dual-core processor designed for fanless, ultra-portable devices, operating at a 0.9 GHz base clock with a 4.5W TDP. It supports Hyper-Threading and HD Graphics 515, providing sufficient performance for basic productivity and media consumption without active cooling. However, the chip suffers from significant performance throttling under sustained loads and is not supported by Windows 11. For detailed specifications and analysis, visit PC Builds.

forum.tomshw.it

15/09/2019

Summary of the review

OFFICIAL - Chuwi Aerobook Review

The Tom's Hardware Italy review highlights the Chuwi AeroBook as a budget-friendly 13.3-inch laptop featuring a solid metal build and a fully laminated FHD IPS display, powered by an Intel Core m3-6Y30 processor. It is praised for its portability (1.26kg), silent fanless design, and a backlit keyboard, offering strong performance for daily productivity tasks. However, the review notes significant cons, including a dated processor that struggles with heavy tasks, poor webcam quality, and lack of USB-C charging on the standard model. The device offers easy storage expansion but suffers from minor build quality control issues, such as slight keyboard flex and limited speaker audio quality.

digitalworlditalia.it

23/01/2017

Summary of the review

Dell Latitude 13 7370: review of the business laptop with a premium feel

The Dell Latitude 13 7370 is a premium, highly portable 13.3-inch business ultrabook featuring a durable carbon fibre and aluminium chassis, MIL-STD 810G certification, and an InfinityEdge display, weighing only 1.1kg. It utilizes fanless Intel Core M processors for silent operation and includes versatile connectivity, such as dual Thunderbolt 3 ports, alongside a comfortable keyboard. However, the machine sacrifices raw performance for silence, and users may face sub-par battery life with the QHD+ display, an awkwardly placed webcam, and a high, premium price point.

smartworld.it

07/10/2016

Summary of the review

Xiaomi Mi Notebook Air 12 Review

The Xiaomi Mi Notebook Air 12 is a sleek, fanless laptop featuring a high-quality aluminum unibody, a sharp 12.5-inch 1080p display, and an extra M.2 slot for storage expansion. While optimized for daily tasks with its Intel Core m3 processor, the device lacks a wide selection of ports, features a highly reflective screen, and necessitates dealing with a Chinese Windows 10 install for international users. Despite good performance and a silent operation, the battery life is considered mediocre, lasting 6 to 7 hours in real-world usage rather than the advertised 11.5 hours.

id.nl

16/08/2016

Summary of the review

Review: Asus Zenbook Flip UX360CA-C4041T - ID.nl

The Asus Zenbook Flip UX360CA-C4041T is a fanless, aluminum 2-in-1 convertible designed for mobility and silent operation, featuring a 360-degree hinge, 8GB RAM, and an Intel Core m3-6Y30 processor. It is highly portable, measuring 13.9mm thick and weighing 1.3kg, making it suitable for daily tasks like document editing and media consumption. The device features a vibrant 13.3-inch Full HD IPS touchscreen, though it is highly reflective. Key advantages include 8 to 10 hours of real-world battery life and a robust selection of ports, including full-sized USB 3.0, USB Type-C, and an SD card reader. However, performance is limited to light usage, as the Core m3 processor becomes sluggish with intensive tasks. Furthermore, the lack of a backlit keyboard is considered a major drawback in this price range. Other disadvantages noted in the review include a slightly flexible hinge that allows for screen wobble during touch interaction. Additionally, the bottom-mounted speakers can produce muffled sound when the device is used in tablet mode.

fwd.nl

26/04/2016

Summary of the review

Review: HP Pavilion 12 x2 (12-b000nd) - FWD

The HP Pavilion 12-x2 (12-b000nd) is a 12-inch 2-in-1 hybrid featuring a 3:2 aspect ratio IPS screen and a secure magnetic hinge for easy mode transitions. While offering a versatile design, it is relatively heavy for its class and, in some configurations, suffers from a sub-par trackpad and significant pre-installed bloatware. Performance is adequate for basic tasks with the Core m3 processor, and it provides decent battery life for daily use, although the audio quality is thin.

techzine.nl

22/01/2016

Summary of the review

HP Spectre x2 12-a005nd Review - Techzine.nl

The HP Spectre x2 12-a005nd presents a high-quality, 2-in-1 hybrid alternative to the Surface Pro, featuring a robust, stylish aluminum body and a unique, sturdy U-shaped stainless steel kickstand. While designed for high portability, a noted drawback is the stiff, somewhat awkward kickstand release mechanism. The device utilizes a fanless Intel Core m-series processor for silent operation, paired with a productivity-focused 12-inch 3:2 IPS display that offers good brightness, though with slightly less vivid color reproduction than high-end competitors. A significant advantage is the inclusion of a high-quality, rigid, backlit keyboard cover that delivers a superior typing experience, along with future-proofed connectivity via two USB Type-C ports, though the absence of Type-A ports necessitates an adapter. The 7 to 9-hour battery life is respectable, though it falls short of premium, all-day endurance standards. The HP Spectre x2 is positioned as a strong, cost-effective professional device, balancing performance with refined design elements.

techpulse.be

30/04/2016

Summary of the review

Asus ZenBook UX305CA Review: A Generous Laptop

The Asus Zenbook UX305CA is a highly portable, all-aluminum ultrabook featuring a fanless design for silent operation and a slim 1.23 cm profile, making it a stylish choice. It features a 13.3-inch QHD+ (3200 x 1800) IPS display that offers excellent visuals, although this high resolution can cause scaling issues with some Windows applications. Powered by an Intel Core m3-6Y30, 8GB of RAM, and a 256GB SSD, the device handles daily productivity tasks with ease but is not suited for heavy gaming or 4K video editing. Notable pros include its premium build quality, impressive screen, and a solid selection of ports—three USB 3.0, micro HDMI, and an SD card reader. Key cons identified in the review include the lack of keyboard backlighting, underwhelming, quiet speakers, and a battery life of roughly 7 to 8 hours. Despite these limitations, the UX305CA is recommended as an excellent, budget-friendly option for students and travelers needing a lightweight device. Copy

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core M3 6y30

Excellent for passive cooling and fanless laptop/tablet designs due to its low 4.5W TDP
Highly energy efficient, contributing to longer battery life in mobile devices
Capable of handling everyday productivity tasks like web browsing, MS Office, and 4K video streaming smoothly
Significant performance leap over older Intel Atom processors
Supports light multitasking and some photo editing in programs like Adobe Photoshop

What we don't like about Intel Core M3 6y30

Performance significantly decreases under continuous heavy load due to thermal limitations
Poorly suited for modern AAA gaming or demanding video editing
Low base clock speed (0.9 GHz) can lead to 100% CPU usage even during some browser-heavy tasks
Integrated HD Graphics 515 is outdated and struggles with most games released after 2015
Higher initial price point compared to similar performing budget laptops when first released

Verdict

The Intel Core m3-6Y30 is a dual-core, four-thread 6th Generation Skylake processor designed for ultra-thin, fanless devices. It features a base frequency of 900 MHz with a Turbo Boost of up to 2.2 GHz, 4 MB of L3 Smart Cache, and an integrated Intel HD Graphics 515 GPU. Its primary strengths are its extremely low 4.5W TDP, which enables silent passive cooling and excellent battery efficiency for mobile productivity and light multimedia use. However, its performance is significantly limited under continuous heavy workloads due to its low clock speeds and thermal constraints, making it unsuitable for modern gaming, 3D rendering, or intensive multitasking.

Best alternatives

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 9965WX

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 9985WX

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Processors

Intel Core Ultra 9 285

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 9995WX

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 7900

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 7985WX

Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 9955WX

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 9900X

Processors

See best alternatives in Buying Guide

Compare Intel Core M3 6y30 with other processors

Graphic comparison of Intel Core M3 6y30 and other processors

No results found