Celeron 1000M vs Core M-5Y31

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core M-5Y31
2014
2 cores / 4 threads, 4 Watt
1.24
+79.7%

M-5Y31 outperforms Celeron 1000M by an impressive 80% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core M-5Y31 and Celeron 1000M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking22742672
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Core MIntel Celeron
Architecture codenameBroadwell (2014−2019)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release date1 December 2014 (9 years ago)21 January 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$86

Detailed specifications

Core M-5Y31 and Celeron 1000M basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed0.9 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz1.8 GHz
L1 cache128 KB128 KB
L2 cache512 KB512 KB
L3 cache4 MB2 MB
Chip lithography14 nm22 nm
Die size82 mm294 mm2
Maximum core temperature95 °C105 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data105 °C
Number of transistors1300 Million1,400 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Core M-5Y31 and Celeron 1000M compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11
SocketFCBGA1234rPGA988B
Power consumption (TDP)4.5 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core M-5Y31 and Celeron 1000M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Thermal Monitoring-+

Security technologies

Core M-5Y31 and Celeron 1000M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core M-5Y31 and Celeron 1000M are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-x++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core M-5Y31 and Celeron 1000M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s25.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics 5300Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core M-5Y31 and Celeron 1000M.

PCI Express lanes1216

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

M-5Y31 1.24
+79.7%
Celeron 1000M 0.69

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

M-5Y31 1916
+78.7%
Celeron 1000M 1072

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

M-5Y31 3396
+36.9%
Celeron 1000M 2480

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

M-5Y31 6563
+38%
Celeron 1000M 4757

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

M-5Y31 2589
+34.6%
Celeron 1000M 1923

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

M-5Y31 2
+50.7%
Celeron 1000M 1

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

M-5Y31 1.09
+47.3%
Celeron 1000M 0.74

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

M-5Y31 1.2
+650%
Celeron 1000M 0.2

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

M-5Y31 1745
+35.8%
Celeron 1000M 1285

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

M-5Y31 10
+12.1%
Celeron 1000M 8

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

M-5Y31 72
+52.4%
Celeron 1000M 47

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.24 0.69
Integrated graphics card 1.21 0.63
Recency 1 December 2014 21 January 2013
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 14 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 4 Watt 35 Watt

M-5Y31 has a 79.7% higher aggregate performance score, 92.1% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more threads, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 775% lower power consumption.

The Core M-5Y31 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1000M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core M-5Y31 and Celeron 1000M, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core M-5Y31
Core M-5Y31
Intel Celeron 1000M
Celeron 1000M

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.8 6 votes

Rate Core M-5Y31 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 158 votes

Rate Celeron 1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core M-5Y31 or Celeron 1000M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.