Athlon 300U vs Core m5-6Y54
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 300U outperforms m5-6Y54 by an impressive 74% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core m5-6Y54 and Athlon 300U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2083 | 1659 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Core m5 | AMD Athlon |
| Architecture codename | Skylake (2015−2016) | Raven Ridge 2 (2019) |
| Release date | 1 September 2015 (8 years ago) | 6 January 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $281 | no data |
| Current price | $851 (3x MSRP) | $486 |
Detailed specifications
Core m5-6Y54 and Athlon 300U 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.1 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4 MB | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 99 mm2 | 209.78 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1750 Million | 4500 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core m5-6Y54 and Athlon 300U 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 configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCBGA1515 | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 4.5 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core m5-6Y54 and Athlon 300U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| My WiFi | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | no data |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| SIPP | - | no data |
| Smart Response | + | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | no data |
Security technologies
Core m5-6Y54 and Athlon 300U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| MPX | + | no data |
| SGX | Yes with Intel® ME | no data |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core m5-6Y54 and Athlon 300U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core m5-6Y54 and Athlon 300U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 29.8 GB/s | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 515 | AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 |
| Max video memory | 16 GB | no data |
| Quick Sync Video | + | no data |
| Clear Video | + | no data |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 900 MHz | no data |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core m5-6Y54 and Athlon 300U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| DVI | + | no data |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Core m5-6Y54 and Athlon 300U integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | + | no data |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | 4096x2304@24Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over eDP | 3840x2160@60Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | 3840x2160@60Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over VGA | N/A | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core m5-6Y54 and Athlon 300U integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | 12 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core m5-6Y54 and Athlon 300U.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 10 | 12 |
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.
Athlon 300U outperforms Core m5-6Y54 by 74% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Athlon 300U outperforms Core m5-6Y54 by 73% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
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.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Athlon 300U outperforms Core m5-6Y54 by 26% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Benchmark coverage: 18%
Core m5-6Y54 outperforms Athlon 300U by 69% in wPrime 32.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Athlon 300U outperforms Core m5-6Y54 by 38% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made 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 (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Athlon 300U outperforms Core m5-6Y54 by 16% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Athlon 300U outperforms Core m5-6Y54 by 27% in TrueCrypt AES.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Core m5-6Y54 outperforms Athlon 300U by 30% in WinRAR 4.0.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Athlon 300U outperforms Core m5-6Y54 by 66% in x264 encoding pass 2.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Athlon 300U outperforms Core m5-6Y54 by 42% in x264 encoding pass 1.
Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Athlon 300U outperforms Core m5-6Y54 by 11% in Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core.
Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Athlon 300U outperforms Core m5-6Y54 by 5% in Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core.
Geekbench 2
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Athlon 300U outperforms Core m5-6Y54 by 16% in Geekbench 2.
Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Core m5-6Y54 outperforms Athlon 300U by 7% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core.
Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Core m5-6Y54 outperforms Athlon 300U by 4% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.46 | 2.54 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.36 | 2.98 |
| Recency | 1 September 2015 | 6 January 2019 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 4 Watt | 15 Watt |
The Athlon 300U is our recommended choice as it beats the Core m5-6Y54 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core m5-6Y54 and Athlon 300U, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
