Core M-5Y10 vs Pentium 967

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Core M-5Y10 vs Pentium 967 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core M-5Y10 vs Pentium 967: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core M-5Y10

2014

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.9 vs 12.2 PassMark/$ ($281 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
❌2911.8% higher power demand at 512W vs 17W.

Pentium 967

2011

Why buy it

✅Costs $147 less on MSRP ($134 MSRP vs $281 MSRP).
✅Delivers 109.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.2 vs 5.9 PassMark/$ ($134 MSRP vs $281 MSRP).
✅Draws 17W instead of 512W, a 495W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,640 vs 1,644).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 4 MB).

Quick Answers

So, is Core M-5Y10 better than Pentium 967?

Yes. Core M-5Y10 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.3% average FPS lead across 38 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.2% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core M-5Y10 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.3% more average FPS across 38 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core M-5Y10 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core M-5Y10 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Core M-5Y10 comes in 109.7% more expensive on MSRP at $281 MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.3% average FPS lead across 38 shared CPU game tests in our data. Pentium 967 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core M-5Y10 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2011), 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core M-5Y10 vs Pentium 967 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core M-5Y10

The Core M-5Y10 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 5 September 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell-Y (2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 0.8 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1234. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,644 points. Launch price was $69.

Pentium 967

The Pentium 967 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 October 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.3 GHz, with boost up to 1.3 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,640 points. Launch price was $134.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core M-5Y10 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, matching the Pentium 967's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Core M-5Y10 versus 1.3 GHz on the Pentium 967 — a 42.4% clock advantage for the Core M-5Y10 (base: 0.8 GHz vs 1.3 GHz). The Core M-5Y10 uses the Broadwell-Y (2014) architecture (14 nm), while the Pentium 967 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core M-5Y10 scores 1,644 against the Pentium 967's 1,640 — a 0.2% lead for the Core M-5Y10. L3 cache: 4 MB (total) on the Core M-5Y10 vs 2 MB (total) on the Pentium 967.

Feature	Core M-5Y10	Pentium 967
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz+54%	1.3 GHz
Base Clock	0.8 GHz	1.3 GHz+63%
L3 Cache	4 MB (total)+100%	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256K (per core)
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Broadwell-Y (2014)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,644	1,640

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core M-5Y10 uses the FCBGA1234 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Pentium 967 uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core M-5Y10	Pentium 967
Socket	FCBGA1234	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core M-5Y10 was priced at $281, while the Pentium 967 came in at $134. On launch pricing ($281 vs $134), Pentium 967 was $147 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core M-5Y10 delivers 5.9 pts/$ vs 12.2 pts/$ for the Pentium 967 — making the Pentium 967 the 70.6% better value option.

Feature	Core M-5Y10	Pentium 967
MSRP	$281	$134-52%
Performance per Dollar	5.9	12.2+107%
Release Date	2014	2011

Search Core M-5Y10 on Amazon

Search Pentium 967 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.