Processor N200 vs m3-6Y30

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core m3-6Y30
2015
2 cores / 4 threads, 4 Watt
1.37
Processor N200
2023
4 cores / 4 threads, 6 Watt
1.56
+13.9%

Processor N200 outperforms Core m3-6Y30 by a moderate 14% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core m3-6Y30 and Processor N200 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22322109
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Core m3Intel Alder Lake-N
Power efficiency25.9324.61
Architecture codenameSkylake-Y (2015)Alder Lake-N (2023)
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)3 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$281$193

Detailed specifications

Core m3-6Y30 and Processor N200 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 speed0.9 GHz0.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz3.7 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 GT/sno data
Multiplier9no data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)96 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)2 MB (shared)
L3 cache4 MB (shared)6 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm10 nm
Die size98.57 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature100 °C105 °C
Number of transistors1750 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Core m3-6Y30 and Processor N200 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)1
SocketFCBGA1515Intel BGA 1264
Power consumption (TDP)4.5 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core m3-6Y30 and Processor N200. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
My WiFi+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Smart Response+no data

Security technologies

Core m3-6Y30 and Processor N200 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-+
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 m3-6Y30 and Processor N200 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core m3-6Y30 and Processor N200. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4, DDR5 4800 MHz Single-channel
Maximum memory size16 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth29.861 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics 515Intel UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake)
Max video memory16 GBno data
Quick Sync Video+-
Clear Video+no data
Clear Video HD+no data
Graphics max frequency850 MHzno data
InTru 3D+no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core m3-6Y30 and Processor N200 integrated GPUs.

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

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Core m3-6Y30 and Processor N200 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
Max resolution over VGAN/Ano data

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Core m3-6Y30 and Processor N200 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX12no data
OpenGL4.5no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core m3-6Y30 and Processor N200.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes109

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.

m3-6Y30 1.37
Processor N200 1.56
+13.9%

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.

m3-6Y30 3388
Processor N200 3937
+16.2%

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.

m3-6Y30 7158
Processor N200 7549
+5.5%

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.

m3-6Y30 2780
Processor N200 3902
+40.4%

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.

m3-6Y30 24.1
+7.8%
Processor N200 25.99

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.

m3-6Y30 2
Processor N200 3
+19.7%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

m3-6Y30 204
Processor N200 219
+7.4%

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.

m3-6Y30 86
Processor N200 113
+32.2%

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.

m3-6Y30 0.99
Processor N200 1.36
+37.4%

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.

m3-6Y30 1.2
Processor N200 3.2
+167%

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.  

m3-6Y30 13
Processor N200 16
+22.6%

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.  

m3-6Y30 73
Processor N200 80
+9.7%

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.

m3-6Y30 1725
Processor N200 2115
+22.6%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.37 1.56
Integrated graphics card 1.64 3.28
Recency 1 September 2015 3 January 2023
Physical cores 2 4
Chip lithography 14 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 4 Watt 6 Watt

m3-6Y30 has 50% lower power consumption.

Processor N200, on the other hand, has a 13.9% higher aggregate performance score, 100% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 7 years, 100% more physical cores, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.

The Processor N200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core m3-6Y30 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core m3-6Y30 and Processor N200, 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 m3-6Y30
Core m3-6Y30
Intel Processor N200
Processor N200

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.


3.6 73 votes

Rate Core m3-6Y30 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 145 votes

Rate Processor N200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core m3-6Y30 or Processor N200, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.