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 m3-7Y30 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£240PassMark multi-core score:2460N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.6 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1515TDP (Thermal design power):4.5 W

Intel Core m3-7Y30 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.

6.1/10

Overall score

Score
6.1/ 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 73% of models
Score components

40%

3.8

Technical score

25%

7.9

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 73% of processors
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 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 71% of models
Score components

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

9.3

Price

â–¼Worse than 71%
3.8

Technical score

Technical score
3.8/ 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 91% of models
Score components

60%

2.8

Performance

18%

4.7

Architecture

10%

3.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 91%
7.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.9/ 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 66% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (6)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 5 video reviews, each 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 66%
?

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~ £240
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 m3-7Y30

Based on 1 · 7

Reviewers like the performance but complain about limited memory and storage, weak speakers and heat, while input and build split opinion.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core m3-7Y30

Technical score
Technical score
3.8/ 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 91% of models
Score components:

60%

2.8

Performance

18%

4.7

Architecture

10%

3.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated graphics

3.8
Reviews score
7.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 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 71% of models
Score components:

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

9.3

Price

7.0
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
FCBGA1515
This processor uses the FCBGA1515 CPU socket, which is older than that of 80.4% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Chipset
Intel 100 Series
This processor supports Intel 100 Series chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.5% of processors.
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
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 58.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.6% 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 1.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.0 GHz which is lower than that of 99.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
2,460
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 2,460 in PassMark, which is lower than 90.7% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,866 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,866 MHz, which is lower than that of 84.9% of processors and equal to 2.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR3-1866 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR3-1866 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.9% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
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
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 615
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 615 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 75.1% of processors and equal to that in 0.4% 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
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 77.7% of processors and equal to 0.1% 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)
?
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.
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core m3-7Y30 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
  • 44.1% smaller die size
    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
    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
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 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 66% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 5 video reviews, each 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.
    7.9 vs 6.7
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • 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
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 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 66% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 5 video reviews, each 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.
    7.9 vs 6.7
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • 44.1% smaller die size
    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
  • 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% 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
  • 78.6% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,460 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,460 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
  • 47.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,340 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,340 vs 2,558
  • 76.3% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,237 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,237 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • 74.7% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (709 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    709 vs 2,804.5
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.0 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
  • 3.8% worse value for money
    Intel Core m3-7Y30 has worse value for money than the average processor (7.02 vs 7.3).
    7.02 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 4 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2016 vs 2020).
    August 2016
    2016 vs 2020
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1515 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1515 vs FP5
  • 78.6% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,460 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,460 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
  • 47.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,340 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,340 vs 2,558
  • 76.3% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,237 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,237 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • 74.7% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (709 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    709 vs 2,804.5
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.0 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
  • 18 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (10 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    10 vs 28
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    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
  • 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
  • 41.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,866 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,866 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • 36.5% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (29.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    29.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 6 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (10 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    10 vs 16
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    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
    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
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 615 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 615 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)

Video reviews

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

8.0
Lon.TV
≈ estimated
18/11/2018
Hands-on review · Linux, gaming, GPU and thermal tests
Verdict
Intel Core m3-7Y30 is an impressive machine for tinkerers, though HDMI limits and throttling hold it back for home theatre use.
6.0
TechTablets
≈ estimated
04/04/2018
Hands-on review · screen, keyboard and speaker tests
Verdict
Intel Core m3-7Y30 is a good package with a sharp screen and nice keyboard, but priced too high for what it offers.
9.0
Mi ware
≈ estimated
01/10/2017
Hands-on review · daily use, games and battery tests
Verdict
Intel Core m3-7Y30 is not perfect, but its strengths outweigh its weak points, making it a solid, light laptop for students and everyday use.
7.0
TechTablets
≈ estimated
10/07/2017
Hands-on review · performance, gaming and thermal tests
Verdict
Intel Core m3-7Y30 is fast and smooth for everyday work, but heavy, quiet and awkward on the lap, so another model is better.
7.0
The Phawx
≈ estimated
19/03/2017
Gaming test · Doom at low settings on this chip
Verdict
Intel Core m3-7Y30 powers a pleasant tablet that would benefit from an active heat sink to hold performance.
8.0
TechTablets
≈ estimated
01/02/2017
Hands-on review · gaming, battery and thermal tests
Verdict
Intel Core m3-7Y30 delivers excellent performance, a clear step up, but its thermals run hot, so a thermal mod is advised.
7.0
TechTablets
≈ estimated
08/09/2017
Unboxing and first impressions · early hands-on
Verdict
Intel Core m3-7Y30 is decent overall, but its screen has poor vertical viewing angles and the speakers are weak.
Not graded
Not graded
Shop video
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
fr.techreviewer.de
≈ estimated
15/02/2022
Hands-on review · Tablet
Verdict
The ALLDOCUBE Mix Plus is a modest upgrade on the Cube i7 Book, with a faster Kaby Lake chip and hardware video decoding, but still only 4GB of RAM.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core m3-7Y30

  • Fanless and silent operation due to ultra-low power consumption (4.5W TDP)
  • Excellent energy efficiency, often leading to longer battery life in tablets and ultraportables
  • Surprisingly capable for everyday tasks like web browsing, Office applications, and 1080p video playback
  • Features a high Turbo clock speed (2.6 GHz) that handles short peak loads effectively
  • Hardware decoding support for modern codecs like H.265/HEVC and VP9
  • Noticeable performance leap over older Atom-based processors

What customers don't like about Intel Core m3-7Y30

  • Prone to thermal throttling under sustained heavy workloads due to passive cooling
  • Limited to 2 cores and 4 threads, making it unsuitable for professional video editing or modern AAA gaming
  • Performance drops significantly after initial peak bursts as the chip heats up
  • Often paired with limited, non-upgradeable RAM (usually 4GB) in many devices, leading to bottlenecks
  • Not officially supported for Windows 11 by Microsoft, limiting its long-term software viability
  • Significantly slower than contemporary U-series Core i5 or i7 processors

Verdict

The Intel Core m3-7Y30 is an ultra-low-power dual-core SoC from the Kaby Lake architecture, featuring 2 cores, 4 threads, and a 4 MB L3 cache. It operates at a base frequency of 1.0 GHz with a Max Turbo frequency of 2.6 GHz and includes integrated Intel HD Graphics 615. Its primary advantages are extreme power efficiency with a TDP of just 4.5W and a fanless design, making it ideal for thin tablets and passively cooled notebooks. However, its performance significantly drops under sustained workloads due to thermal throttling, and it is officially unsupported for Windows 11.

Compare Intel Core m3-7Y30 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 m3-7Y30 and other processors

No results found