A10-8700P vs m7-6Y75

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core m7-6Y75
2015
2 cores / 4 threads, 4 Watt
1.47
+4.3%
A10-8700P
2015
4 cores / 4 threads, 12 Watt
1.41

Core m7-6Y75 outperforms A10-8700P by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core m7-6Y75 and A10-8700P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking21712213
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Core m7AMD Carrizo
Power efficiency27.823.81
Architecture codenameSkylake-Y (2015)Carrizo (2015−2018)
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)3 June 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$393no data

Detailed specifications

Core m7-6Y75 and A10-8700P 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed1.2 GHz1.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.1 GHz3.2 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 GT/sno data
Multiplier12no data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache256 KB (per core)2048 KB
L3 cache4 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography14 nm28 nm
Die size98.57 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature100 °C90 °C
Number of transistors1750 Million3100 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Core m7-6Y75 and A10-8700P 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)no data
SocketFCBGA1515FP4
Power consumption (TDP)4.5 Watt12 - 35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core m7-6Y75 and A10-8700P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2HSA 1.0
AES-NI++
FMA-FMA4
AVX+AVX
FRTC-+
FreeSync-+
DualGraphics-+
TrueAudio-+
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
Out-of-band client management-+
VirusProtect-+
HSA-+
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
My WiFi+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
SIPP+-
Smart Response+no data

Security technologies

Core m7-6Y75 and A10-8700P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
MPX+-
SGXYes with Intel® MEno data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core m7-6Y75 and A10-8700P are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data
IOMMU 2.0-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core m7-6Y75 and A10-8700P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3-2133
Maximum memory size16 GBno data
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth29.861 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics 515AMD Radeon R6 Graphics
iGPU core countno data6
Max video memory16 GBno data
Quick Sync Video+-
Clear Video+no data
Clear Video HD+no data
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+
Graphics max frequency1 GHzno data
InTru 3D+no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core m7-6Y75 and A10-8700P integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort++
HDMI++
DVI+no data

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Core m7-6Y75 and A10-8700P integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

4K resolution support+no data
Max resolution over HDMI 1.44096x2304@24Hzno data
Max resolution over eDP3840x2160@60Hzno data
Max resolution over DisplayPort3840x2160@60Hzno data

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Core m7-6Y75 and A10-8700P integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX12DirectX® 12
OpenGL4.5no data
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core m7-6Y75 and A10-8700P.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes10no data

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.

m7-6Y75 1.47
+4.3%
A10-8700P 1.41

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.

m7-6Y75 2337
+4.1%
A10-8700P 2245

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.

m7-6Y75 3854
+65.1%
A10-8700P 2334

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.

m7-6Y75 6302
A10-8700P 6394
+1.5%

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.

m7-6Y75 2730
A10-8700P 2978
+9.1%

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.

m7-6Y75 19
A10-8700P 17.19
+10.5%

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.

m7-6Y75 2
+5.6%
A10-8700P 2

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

m7-6Y75 205
+5.7%
A10-8700P 194

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.

m7-6Y75 102
+47.8%
A10-8700P 69

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.

m7-6Y75 1.08
+25.6%
A10-8700P 0.86

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.

m7-6Y75 1.7
+13.3%
A10-8700P 1.5

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.

m7-6Y75 1625
+22.3%
A10-8700P 1328

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.  

m7-6Y75 16
+2.3%
A10-8700P 15

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.  

m7-6Y75 89
+20.8%
A10-8700P 74

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

m7-6Y75 5457
+16.7%
A10-8700P 4677

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

m7-6Y75 2755
+39.5%
A10-8700P 1975

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.47 1.41
Recency 1 September 2015 3 June 2015
Physical cores 2 4
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 4 Watt 12 Watt

m7-6Y75 has a 4.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 months, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

A10-8700P, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core m7-6Y75 and A10-8700P.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core m7-6Y75 and A10-8700P, 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 m7-6Y75
Core m7-6Y75
AMD A10-8700P
A10-8700P

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.


3.7 33 votes

Rate Core m7-6Y75 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 119 votes

Rate A10-8700P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core m7-6Y75 or A10-8700P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.