inputWhat is intel core m3. Intel core m3 what kind of processor
Core m3-7Y30 processor
Number of cores - 2. Thanks to Hyper-Threading technology, the number of threads is 4, which is twice more numbers physical cores and increases the performance of multi-threaded applications and games.
Base frequency cores m3-7Y30 - 1.6 GHz. Maximum frequency in Intel mode Turbo Boost reaches 2.4 GHz.
Price in Russia
Want to buy a cheap Core m3-7Y30? Check out the list of stores that already sell the processor in your city.Family
ShowIntel Core m3-7Y30 test
The data is obtained from tests of users who have tested their systems both with and without overclocking. Thus, you see the average values \u200b\u200bcorresponding to the processor.
Speed \u200b\u200bof numeric operations
Different tasks require different strengths CPU. A system with a small number of fast cores is great for gaming, but will yield to a system with big amount slow cores in a render script.
We believe that for a budget gaming computer a processor with at least 4 cores / 4 threads is suitable. Wherein separate games can load it by 100% and slow down, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a FPS drawdown.
Ideally, the buyer should aim for a minimum of 6/6 or 6/12, but keep in mind that systems with more than 16 threads are now only applicable for professional tasks.
The data was obtained from tests of users who tested their systems both in overclocking (maximum value in the table) and without (minimum). The typical result is shown in the middle, the color bar indicates the position among all tested systems.
Components
We have compiled a list of components that users most often choose when assembling a computer based on the Core m3-7Y30. Also, with these components, the best test results and stable operation are achieved.
Most popular config: motherboard for Intel Core m3-7Y30 - HP ZBook 15 G3, video card - NVS 5400M.
Characteristics
The main
| Manufacturer | Intel |
| Date of issue Month and year when the processor appeared on sale. | 01-2018 |
| Nucleus The number of physical cores. | 2 |
| Streams Number of threads. The number of logical processor cores that the operating system sees. | 4 |
| Multithreading technology Thanks to Intel's Hyper-threading technology and AMD's SMT technology, one physical core is defined in operating system as two logical ones, thereby increasing the performance of the processor in multithreaded applications. | Hyper-threading (note that some games may not work well with Hyper-threading, which is why it is worth disabling the technology in the motherboard BIOS). |
| Base frequency Guaranteed frequency of all processor cores at maximum load. Performance in single-threaded and multi-threaded applications and games depends on it. It is important to remember that speed and frequency are not directly related. For instance, new processor at a lower frequency may be faster than the old at a higher frequency. | 1.6 GHz |
| Turbo frequency Maximum frequency of one processor core in turbo mode. Manufacturers have allowed the processor to independently increase the frequency of one or more cores under heavy load, thereby increasing the speed of operation. Strongly affects the speed in games and applications requiring CPU frequency. | 2.4 GHz |
Dabout the official release Intel Kaby Lake almost a stone's throw away. This event is expected on August 16-18 at IDF 2016. But Chinese sources already allow making bets on changes in new generations of processors against the background of old ones.
So, the series Core M (aimed at extremely thin and light tablets and laptops, usually with passive cooling) can suffer losses. The combination of price, performance and power consumption of the first and second generation of these processors did not suit either manufacturers or users, although it was a serious step forward against the background of Core Y or Atom / Pentium / Celeron. Now more and more companies are choosing by hook or by crook to use 15-watt Core i5 models instead of 4.5-watt Core m3 / m5 / m7, fearing a drop in new device sales amid growing customer distrust of the Core M brand. To remedy the situation, Intel can:
AND) Rename Core m5 and Core m7 processors. Then the third generation Core M will belong to the Core i5 or Core i7 series, which are now inhabited by exclusively "full-fledged" models with a thermal package of 15 W, 28 W and higher. Such a move would be analogous to an attempt to outwit the customer, who looks only at the left side of the processor name (denotes a family), but not at the right. It is there, on the right, that the letter Y remains, so as not to create final confusion (an example of such a "cunning" name: Core i5-7Y54.) Only the most inexpensive and weak Y-class processors will be left as they are (example:Core m3-7Y30.) Probably, the selling price of all the third generation Core M will be identical to the price of the old (second generation) or even less.
Estimated characteristics of the new processors:
- Core m3 7Y30 (1.0 - 2.6 GHz, Intel HD Graphics 615)
- Core i5 7Y54 (1.2 - 3.2 GHz, Intel HD Graphics 615)
- Core i7 7Y75 (1.3 - 3.6 GHz, Intel HD Graphics 615)
B) If the first option is not confirmed or does not give an effect, in the future it is possible to completely abandon the Core M processors. In its strategy, Intel focuses primarily on its customers, on large companies, and they just express dissatisfaction with these processors. The most prominent Core M devices are the latest Microsoft Surfaceas well as a 12-inch Apple MacBook. And then, and this can be translated to Core i3 and Core i5, taking into account the possibility of reducing their thermal package by limiting frequencies. And we also have to see what Apple does with the MacBook Air series, which should be clearer in the second half of the year. In case of refusal from Core M intel you will have to rethink your attitude towards the Atom, Celeron and Pentium brands, which are now successful only in the cheapest consumer devices. ©
A little over 8 years ago, Steve Jobs introduced Macbook air - the device that opened new class portable notebooks - ultrabooks. Since then, there have been many different ultrabooks, but they all had one thing in common - low-voltage processors with a heat dissipation (TDP) of 15-17 watts. However, in 2015, with the transition to the 14 nm process technology, Intel decided to go even further, and introduced a line of Core m processors, which have a TDP of only 4-5 W, but should be much more powerful than the Intel Atom line with a similar TDP. The main feature of the new processors is that they can be passively cooled, that is, the cooler can be removed from the device. But alas, removing the cooler brought a lot of new problems, which we will discuss below.
Comparison with closest competitors
And although the processors on Kaby Lake have already come out, their tests are not yet available, so we will restrict ourselves to the previous line, Skylake - from a technical point of view, the difference between them is small. For comparison, let's take three processors - Intel Atom x7-Z8700, as one of the most powerful representatives of the Atom line, Intel Core m3-6Y30 - the weakest Core m (I'll explain later why you shouldn't take more powerful ones), and Intel Core i3-6100U - a popular representative of the weakest line of "full-fledged" low-voltage processors:
It turns out an interesting picture - from a physical point of view, Core m3 and i3 are absolutely identical, only the maximum frequencies of the graphics and processor differ, while the thermal package differs threefold, which, in general, cannot be. The Atom has the same TDP as the Core m3, comparable clocks, but 4 physical cores. At the same time, although there are more cores, they are greatly reduced in terms of capabilities to reduce heat generation: for example, an i5-6300HQ with 4 "full" physical cores with the same frequencies has a TDP an order of magnitude higher - 45 watts. Therefore, it will be interesting to compare the capabilities of the trimmed and full-fledged architectures with the same heat dissipation.
Processor tests
As it was already found out above, m3 is essentially i3, clamped three times smaller heat pack. It would seem that the difference in performance should be at least twofold, but there are several nuances here: firstly, Intel allows Core m not to pay attention to TDP until its temperature reaches a certain point. This is very clearly seen when running the Cinebench R15 benchmark several times:
As you can see, the processor gained about 215 points in the first 4 test runs, and then the results stabilized at 185, that is, the performance loss due to such "cheating" by Intel was about 15%. Therefore, it makes no sense to take more powerful Core m5 and m7 - after 10 minutes of load, they will reduce performance to the level of Core m3. And here is the result of the i3-6100U, the operating frequency of which is only 100 MHz higher than that of the m3-6Y30, much better - 250 points:
That is, when only the processor is loaded, the difference in performance between m3 and i3 turns out to be 35% - quite a significant result. But Atom has shown itself from the best side - although the cores are cut, but twice as many of them gave the processor the opportunity to score 140 points. Yes, the result is still 25% worse than the Core m3, but let's not forget about the eightfold difference in price between them.
The second nuance is that the thermal package is designed for both a video card and a processor at the same time, so let's look at the results of the 3Dmark 11 Performance test: this is a test designed for a mid-range PC (which our systems belong to), testing both the processor and the video card at the same time. And here the final difference turns out to be the same, Core m3 turns out to be 30% worse than i3 (because Core i3 also no longer suffices for a heat pack - it needs about 20 watts to work at maximum frequencies):
Intel Core m3-6Y30:
Intel Core i3-6100U:
But Intel Atom fails with a bang - the result is 4-5 times worse than that of m3 and i3:
And this, in principle, is expected - Cinebench tests the bare mathematical performance of the processor and is well suited only for comparing processors of the same architecture, but 3Dmark gives a versatile load, much more close to real life. Still, the eightfold difference in price keeps the Atom afloat.
power usage
As you can see from the tests above, a threefold difference in TDP gives a performance gain of about 35%. However, this is only true under heavy load, which is quite rare for ultrabooks. For convenience, let's take two MacBooks, 12 "and 13" 2016 - macOS on different devices is optimized equally well, and this will allow you to find out the difference in the power consumption of devices without being tied to the operating system (yes, the power consumption of the entire system is tested below, however, only screens and processors make a significant contribution to it, and since the former are very similar, a significant contribution to the difference in power consumption only processors give). And then the difference turns out to be ... only one and a half watts on average, 7.2 and 8.9 watts (and in the 13 "Macbook there is a processor more powerful than i3-6100U):
findings
What is the end result? Intel Atom - a good choice for an inexpensive tablet or netbook, on which no one will run anything heavier than 1080p60 from YouTube. The processor is cheap, and for that, it can be forgiven for the difference in performance with the Core lines. Intel Core m is a good choice for a performance tablet or a simple ultrabook. Due to the lack of a cooler, such a device will be absolutely silent, and in ordinary tasks it will be no slower than its more powerful counterparts on the Core i. However, it is clearly not worth taking it for processing photos or videos, and even more so for games - the performance quickly runs into a low TDP and decreases quite dramatically even in comparison with a simple i3. Well, the Core i line is a good choice for a productive ultrabook. If there is at least simple discrete graphics in the system, such a device turns out to be at the level of gaming laptops 5 years ago, and allows you to easily deal with both photo and light video processing, as well as making it possible to play massive games even at not the most minimal graphics settings. However, any load above average will lead to a noticeable noise from a small high-speed cooler, which can annoy those who like to work in silence at night.
A little over 8 years ago, Steve Jobs introduced the Macbook Air, a device that opened up a new class of portable laptops - ultrabooks. Since then, there have been many different ultrabooks, but they all had one thing in common - low-voltage processors with a heat dissipation (TDP) of 15-17 watts. However, in 2015, with the transition to the 14 nm process technology, Intel decided to go even further, and introduced a line of Core m processors, which have a TDP of only 4-5 W, but should be much more powerful than the Intel Atom line with a similar TDP. The main feature of the new processors is that they can be passively cooled, that is, the cooler can be removed from the device. But alas, removing the cooler brought a lot of new problems, which we will discuss below.
Comparison with closest competitors
And although the processors on Kaby Lake have already come out, their tests are not yet available, so we will restrict ourselves to the previous line, Skylake - from a technical point of view, the difference between them is small. For comparison, let's take three processors - Intel Atom x7-Z8700, as one of the most powerful representatives of the Atom line, Intel Core m3-6Y30 - the weakest Core m (I'll explain later why you shouldn't take more powerful ones), and Intel Core i3-6100U - a popular representative of the weakest line of "full-fledged" low-voltage processors:
It turns out an interesting picture - from a physical point of view, Core m3 and i3 are absolutely identical, only the maximum frequencies of the graphics and processor differ, while the thermal package differs threefold, which, in general, cannot be. The Atom has the same TDP as the Core m3, comparable clocks, but 4 physical cores. At the same time, although there are more cores, they are greatly reduced in terms of capabilities to reduce heat generation: for example, an i5-6300HQ with 4 "full" physical cores with the same frequencies has a TDP an order of magnitude higher - 45 watts. Therefore, it will be interesting to compare the capabilities of the trimmed and full-fledged architectures with the same heat dissipation.
Processor tests
As it was already found out above, m3 is essentially i3, clamped three times smaller heat pack. It would seem that the difference in performance should be at least twofold, but there are several nuances here: firstly, Intel allows Core m not to pay attention to TDP until its temperature reaches a certain point. This is very clearly seen when running the Cinebench R15 benchmark several times:
As you can see, the processor gained about 215 points in the first 4 test runs, and then the results stabilized at 185, that is, the performance loss due to such "cheating" by Intel was about 15%. Therefore, it makes no sense to take more powerful Core m5 and m7 - after 10 minutes of load, they will reduce performance to the level of Core m3. And here is the result of the i3-6100U, the operating frequency of which is only 100 MHz higher than that of the m3-6Y30, much better - 250 points:
That is, when only the processor is loaded, the difference in performance between m3 and i3 turns out to be 35% - quite a significant result. But Atom has shown itself from the best side - although the cores are cut, but twice as many of them gave the processor the opportunity to score 140 points. Yes, the result is still 25% worse than the Core m3, but let's not forget about the eightfold difference in price between them.
The second nuance is that the thermal package is designed for both a video card and a processor at the same time, so let's look at the results of the 3Dmark 11 Performance test: this is a test designed for a mid-range PC (which our systems belong to), testing both the processor and the video card at the same time. And here the final difference turns out to be the same, Core m3 turns out to be 30% worse than i3 (because Core i3 also no longer suffices for a heat pack - it needs about 20 watts to work at maximum frequencies):
Intel Core m3-6Y30:
Intel Core i3-6100U:
But Intel Atom fails with a bang - the result is 4-5 times worse than that of m3 and i3:
And this, in principle, is expected - Cinebench tests the bare mathematical performance of the processor and is well suited only for comparing processors of the same architecture, but 3Dmark gives a versatile load, much more close to real life. Still, the eightfold difference in price keeps the Atom afloat.
power usage
As you can see from the tests above, a threefold difference in TDP gives a performance gain of about 35%. However, this is only true under heavy load, which is quite rare for ultrabooks. For convenience, let's take two MacBooks, 12 "and 13" 2016 - macOS on different devices is optimized equally well, and this will allow you to find out the difference in the power consumption of devices without reference to the operating system (yes, below the power consumption of the entire system is tested, but only screens and processors, and since the former are very similar, only processors make a significant contribution to the difference in power consumption). And here the difference turns out to be ... only one and a half watts on average, 7.2 and 8.9 watts (moreover, a 13 "Macbook has a processor more powerful than i3-6100U):
findings
What is the end result? Intel Atom is a good choice for an inexpensive tablet or netbook, on which no one will run anything heavier than 1080p60 from YouTube. The processor is cheap, and for that, it can be forgiven for the difference in performance with the Core lines. Intel Core m is a good choice for a performance tablet or a simple ultrabook. Due to the lack of a cooler, such a device will be absolutely silent, and in ordinary tasks it will be no slower than its more powerful counterparts on the Core i. However, it is clearly not worth taking it for processing photos or videos, and even more so for games - the performance quickly runs into a low TDP and decreases quite dramatically even in comparison with a simple i3. Well, the Core i line is a good choice for a productive ultrabook. If there is at least simple discrete graphics in the system, such a device turns out to be at the level of gaming laptops 5 years ago, and allows you to easily deal with both photo and light video processing, as well as making it possible to play massive games even at not the most minimal graphics settings. However, any load above average will lead to a noticeable noise from a small high-speed cooler, which can annoy those who like to work in silence at night.