The Intel Core m3-8100Y is a low-power processor designed for use in thin and light laptops and tablets, and it’s proven particularly popular since the chip launched in 2018 among Chinese PC makers like GPD and One Netbook, who have used it in a number of mini-laptops.

But Intel began phasing out the processor earlier this year, with the final shipments set to go out to customers in October. While there are a number of other options available for PC makers looking for a low-power chip for use in laptops, tablets, or mini PCs, one new option is particularly interesting… because on paper the new Intel Pentium Gold 6500Y processor looks nearly identical to the Core m3-8100Y.


Both chips are 5-watt processor manufactured using a 14 nm process. Both are positioned under Intel’s “Amber Lake” processor lineup.

Both are also dual-core processors with support for hyperthreading, allowing for up to four threads. Both have base clock speeds of 1.1 GHz and support for boost speeds up to 3.4 GHz, although either chip can be configured with a base frequency as low as 600 MHz or as high as 1.6 GHz.

And both feature Intel UHD 615 graphics with 300 MHz base and 900 MHz max graphics frequencies.

There are at least two differences:

  • The Pentium Gold 6500Y may be more energy efficient, as it supports TDP-down configurations as low as 3.5 W or TDP-up as high as 7W, while still apparently offering similar speeds to the m3-8100Y (which supports 4.5W down or 8W up).
  • Intel launched the Pentium Gold 6500Y in the first quarter of 2021, making it about two and a half years newer than its predecessor. As such, it’s still available and fully supported.

Intel seems to be moving away from the Core m3 brand altogether, and positioning the current version of this chip as a “Pentium Gold” processor helps differentiate it from higher-performance chips sold under the Core i3 or higher names.

But honestly, the chip appears to be very closely related to another new processor, the Intel Core i3-10100Y, which has similar features but slightly higher CPU and graphics frequencies.

According to information posted recently to the GeekBench website, the next-gen Microsoft Surface Go tablet may be available with a choice of Intel Pentium Gold 6500Y or Core i3-10100Y processor options, which suggests that the top-tier version of the upcoming Microsoft Surface Go 3 may not be all that different from a top-of-the-line Surface Go 2 (which already has a Core m3-8100Y system-on-a-chip), but the entry-level model could be a significant upgrade over starting configuration for the Surface Go 2 (which has a 1.7 GHz Pentium Gold 4425Y processor that does not support Intel Turbo Boost technology).

via oh

Support Liliputing

Liliputing's primary sources of revenue are advertising and affiliate links (if you click the "Shop" button at the top of the page and buy something on Amazon, for example, we'll get a small commission).

But there are several ways you can support the site directly even if you're using an ad blocker* and hate online shopping.

Contribute to our Patreon campaign


Contribute via PayPal

* If you are using an ad blocker like uBlock Origin and seeing a pop-up message at the bottom of the screen, we have a guide that may help you disable it.

Subscribe to Liliputing via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9,437 other subscribers

15 replies on “As Core m3-8100Y reaches end of life, Intel launches nearly identical Pentium Gold 6500Y”

  1. This looks to me like an example of an old chip being recycled under a new name to make up for manufacturing shortfalls with everything going on.

  2. Intel marketing naming madness reaching new levels.
    At this point is just random string generator.

    I still want fan-less 14″ and 15″ inch. And since AMD has no interest, it is Intel, until ARM takes over if not stopped by NVIDIA.

    1. I’m still using a core m thinkpad. I miss that brief period of time when it was very easy to find good fanless laptops by looking for core m.

  3. Interesting. My OneMix3 does not have TPM in the bios, and running ‘tpm.msc’ says that TPM cannot be found.

    Clearly the laptop companies will want to run Windows 11. Perhaps this upgrade just adds TPM 2.0 and leaves the rest of the chip alone.

    If the existing OneMix3 has TPM, then they need to issue a bios upgrade. Otherwise these little laptops will forever be stuck at Win 10.

      1. Unless it’s Pluton.
        I don’t know how many CPUs have Pluton in them, but I suspect that if one was ever made, they wouldn’t be bragging about it.

  4. Must be something else at play here. Could be a more aggressive ramp/down from Turbo Boost, or…?

    Hopefully we’ll see in a couple of weeks.

    (Oh, one other minor difference: iGPU EUs = 23 on the 6500Y vs 24 on the m3-8200Y, I believe.)

  5. Brad, xda-devs did a quick comparison of the Surface Go 2 & expected Go 3 options’ Geekbench scores.

    Pentium Gold 6500Y: 3,197 & 5,643 (single- & multicore resp.)
    Core m3-8100Y: ~4,100 & 6,800
    Core i3-10100Y: 4,359 & 7,643
    Pentium Gold 4425Y: 2,200 & 4,100

    If it holds up in real world usage, the 6500Y tops the earlier 4400Y (~2,200 & 4,100), but still seems to not be quite at the old m3’s level.

    1. I don’t really trust the GeekBench scores due to limited sample size and the fact that we’re looking at pre-release hardware. But that’s not to say that they aren’t plausible – maybe Microsoft is using the TDP-down config, for example.

      1. Fair point. There are some m3-8100Y test results which are under the 3,200 sc / 5600mc scores too (tho those are only on the very last page of the geek bench results.)

        Like I said, guess we’ll see in a few weeks.

        (By the way… don’t know what happened, but the site images seem to break on Safari now, started happening 3-6 weeks ago? Guess I’ll use Chrome for comments.)

          1. Just see a blank space, for image header images, images within the articles and even the Liliputing logo:

            Not really a big deal; I think I set some settings a few years ago which cause things like this now and then. It was just that things were working fine until relatively recently, thought perhaps others had seen the sam w (but seems like not).

            I’ll just stick with Chrome, it does the job fine.

          2. Thanks for the picture. That does look odd, but I asked a few other folks to check in Safari for iOS and macOS and they could not replicate, so it does seem likely that it’s something on your side. You might want to try clearing your cache, but I’m not sure if that’ll do anything. Or, like you said, you could just keep using Chrome.

            I’m just relieved that it’s probably not a widespread issue, because if it was affecting other Safari users as well, then I’d have to do something about it! 🙂

Comments are closed.