OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Pentium A1020 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£140PassMark multi-core score:1167N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:2.7 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1170TDP (Thermal design power):10 W

Intel Pentium A1020 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components

40%

4.6

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 66% of processors
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

â–¼Worse than 51%
4.6

Technical score

Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components

60%

4.5

Performance

18%

4.5

Architecture

10%

3.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

6.5

Platform

1%

7.0

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 68%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £140
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Pentium A1020

Technical score
Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components:

60%

4.5

Performance

18%

4.5

Architecture

10%

3.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

6.5

Platform

1%

7.0

Integrated graphics

4.6
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

7.3
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
laptop
CPU socket
FCBGA1170
This processor uses the FCBGA1170 CPU socket, which is older than that of 94.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 81.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
2.7 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.7 GHz which is lower than that of 96.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.41 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.41 GHz which is lower than that of 69.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
1,167
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 1,167 in PassMark, which is lower than 98.7% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
22 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 22 nm process node, which is older than that of 85% of processors and equal to that of 9.6% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 22 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 84.9% of processors and equal to that of 9.8% of processors.
L3 cache
0 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.9% of processors and equal to that of 6.1% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 52.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to that of 14.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L
This processor supports DDR DDR3L, which is older than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,333 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,333 MHz, which is lower than that of 98.6% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3L-1333 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3L-1333 MHz, which is lower than that of 99.9% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
8 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 8 GB of memory, which is less than 98.3% of processors and equal to 1.6% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
?
Integrated GPU execution units
12
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 12 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 62.7% of processors and equal to 9.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
688 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 688 MHz which is higher than that of 85.1% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 72.6% of processors and equal to 0.4% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
10 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 10 W which is lower than that of 94.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
10 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 10 W which is lower than that of 94.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
10 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 10 W which is lower than that of 95.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Pentium A1020 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 77.8% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • 84.4% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    10 W vs 64 W
  • 42.4% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (102 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    102 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 77.8% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • 96.6% higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (688 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    688 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 42.4% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (102 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    102 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 96.6% higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (688 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    688 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 77.8% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • 84.4% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    10 W vs 64 W
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 77.8% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • 89.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,167 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,167 vs 11,469
  • 72.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (699 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    699 vs 2,558
  • 38.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 83.3% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    22 nm vs 12 nm
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1170 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1170 vs FP5
  • 4 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2016 vs 2020).
    January 2016
    2016 vs 2020
  • 89.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,167 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,167 vs 11,469
  • 72.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (699 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    699 vs 2,558
  • 38.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.41 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.41 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 83.3% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    22 nm vs 12 nm
  • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    128 KB vs 384 KB
  • 33.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    2 MB vs 3 MB
  • Less advanced foundry
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 58.3% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,333 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,333 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 54.6% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (21.3 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    21.3 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 12 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (4 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    4 vs 16
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3L-1333 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3L-1333 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Older PCIe version
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L vs DDR4).
    DDR3L vs DDR4
  • 87.5% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (8 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    8 GB vs 64 GB
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (12 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    12 vs 24
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Pentium A1020

  • Excellent energy efficiency with a low 10W Thermal Design Power (TDP)
  • Highly reliable for long-term use, with some users reporting over 11 years of stable performance
  • Runs cool and generates very little heat, even under consistent use
  • Fulfills basic functions well for daily tasks like web browsing, school work, and office applications
  • Includes integrated graphics, eliminating the need for a separate graphics card for basic use
  • Features 4 physical cores, which helps with basic multitasking compared to dual-core entry-level chips

What customers don't like about Intel Pentium A1020

  • Poor performance in modern or intensive gaming; mostly limited to low-end titles like Roblox
  • Outdated 22nm architecture that is no longer competitive with contemporary processors
  • Low maximum memory support, capped at 8GB of DDR3L RAM
  • Lacks hyper-threading/multithreading technology, which limits potential processing efficiency
  • Weak benchmark results compared to newer i3 or i5 models, particularly in single-thread performance
  • Limited to older connectivity standards like PCIe 2.0 and USB 3.0/2.0

Verdict

The Intel Pentium A1020 is a quad-core mobile processor from the Bay Trail family, launched in Q1 2016, featuring a base clock speed of 2.41 GHz with a burst frequency up to 2.70 GHz. Built on a 22nm lithography process, it includes 2 MB of L2 cache and operates with a low 10W TDP, supporting up to 8 GB of DDR3L-1333 memory across two channels. Its main characteristics include integrated Intel HD Graphics for Atom Z3700 series and support for 64-bit instructions, making it highly power-efficient and suitable for basic computing tasks in budget-friendly devices. However, it lacks hyper-threading technology and modern features like AES-NI security instructions, and its aging architecture is no longer competitive for gaming or heavy multitasking.

Compare Intel Pentium A1020 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Pentium A1020 and other processors

No results found