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 G3220 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£20PassMark multi-core score:1890N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1150TDP (Thermal design power):53 W

Intel Pentium G3220 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 5 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Pentium G3220
4.4/10

Overall score

Score
4.4/ 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 99% of models
Score components

40%

3.3

Technical score

25%

3.3

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

3.3

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 99% of processors
6.1

Value for money

Value for money
6.1/ 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 95% of models
Score components

70%

4.4

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 95%
3.3

Technical score

Technical score
3.3/ 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 98% of models
Score components

60%

2.2

Performance

18%

4.0

Architecture

10%

4.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.8

Power & Thermal

4%

6.9

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 98%
3.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.3/ 10
✕
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
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models

3.3

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.4

Average grade

20%

8.2

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 99%
?

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
  • intel-pentium-g3220
intel-pentium-g3220
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel Pentium G3220

Based on 3 · 2

Reviewers mainly complain about the limited core and thread count, which holds it back in demanding tasks.
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Intel Pentium G3220

Based on 41 owners sharing their experience in online comments

34%positive3%mixed63%negative

Owners most often report gaming lag and stuttering, though some get smooth play with lower settings or a graphics card.

What owners dislike

  • Games stutter and freeze even with a decent graphics card, and some owners say textures load late until they cap the frame rate.15
  • Frame rates fall to around 10 to 20 fps on low-end graphics cards, and sudden drops happen even in games that otherwise run well.9
  • GTA V stutters and lags badly on this processor, even on minimum graphics settings with a mid-range graphics card.6
  • The processor bottlenecks the graphics card, so demanding games need lower settings and still run poorly.4
  • Owners with only 4 GB of RAM see more stutter and frame drops in games like Battlefield 4; 6 to 8 GB runs smoother.4
  • Textures load slowly and images look blurry or washed out when graphics settings are turned down to run the game.3
  • Owners lock the frame rate to 30 to 40 fps to keep games from stuttering and textures from loading late.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Processors model ranking

Ranked #379 of 558 models in Processors (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Pentium G3220

Technical score
Technical score
3.3/ 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 98% of models
Score components:

60%

2.2

Performance

18%

4.0

Architecture

10%

4.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.8

Power & Thermal

4%

6.9

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated graphics

3.3
Reviews score
3.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.1/ 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 95% of models
Score components:

70%

4.4

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.1
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1150
This processor uses the LGA1150 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 55.3% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
Chipset
H97, Z97, H87, Q87, B85, Q85, Z87, H81
This processor supports H97, Z97, H87, Q87, B85, Q85, Z87, H81 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 52.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
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
SSE4.1, SSE4.2
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 99.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
2
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94.3% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.0 GHz which is lower than that of 82.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
1,890
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 1,890 in PassMark, which is lower than 95.2% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
3 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 3 MB which is smaller than that of 85.6% of processors and equal to that of 5.4% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 85.4% of processors and equal to that of 14.5% 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
DDR3
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.3% 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)
DDR3-1333 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1333 MHz, which is lower than that of 98.5% of processors and equal to 1.3% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% 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
10
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 10 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 72.7% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.7% of processors and equal to that of 25.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 51.6% of processors and equal to 4.7% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
53 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 53 W which is higher than that of 60.2% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
53 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 53 W which is higher than that of 60.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
53 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 53 W which is lower than that of 69.1% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Pentium G3220 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 34 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (66 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    66 °C vs 100 °C
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 12.5x cheaper
    Intel Pentium G3220 is cheaper than the average processor (£20 vs £250).
    £20 vs £250
  • 17.2% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (53 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    53 W vs 64 W
  • 12.5x cheaper
    Intel Pentium G3220 is cheaper than the average processor (£20 vs £250).
    £20 vs £250
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 34 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (66 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    66 °C vs 100 °C
  • 17.2% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (53 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    53 W vs 64 W
  • 50.7% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.3/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models

    3.3

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.3 vs 6.7
  • 89.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (527 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    527 vs 5,209
  • 83.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,890 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,890 vs 11,469
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 65.7% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (527 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    527 vs 1,535
  • 34.1% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,685 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,685 vs 2,558
  • 78.5% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (603 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    603 vs 2,804.5
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 50.7% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.3/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models

    3.3

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.3 vs 6.7
  • 54.2% lower sentiment score
    3.3 vs 7.2
  • 20.4% worse value for money
    Intel Pentium G3220 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.05 vs 7.3).
    6.05 vs 7.29
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    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 (NX bit, Secure Key vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    NX bit, Secure Key vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 7 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2013 vs 2020).
    September 2013
    2013 vs 2020
  • 89.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (527 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    527 vs 5,209
  • 83.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,890 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,890 vs 11,469
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 65.7% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (527 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    527 vs 1,535
  • 34.1% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,685 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,685 vs 2,558
  • 78.5% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (603 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    603 vs 2,804.5
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x3.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 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
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Haswell vs Kaby Lake).
    Haswell vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (3 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    3 MB vs 9 MB
  • 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
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 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
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1333 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,333 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 50% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) 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), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 58.3% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (10 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    10 vs 24
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 17.8% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (53 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    53 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

5.0
AndrosCroll Hardware
≈ estimated
02/02/2024
Hands-on review · gaming tests and benchmarks
Verdict
Intel Pentium G3220 is a poor choice for gaming but fine for office and light tasks; a Core i5 is the better buy.
8.0
SglepBoys
≈ estimated
10/07/2014
Hands-on review · gaming, overclock and temperature tests
Verdict
Intel Pentium G3220 is a basic dual-core that suits low-cost builds with a mid-range graphics card, but overclocking gains are small.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
m.hexus.net
≈ estimated
17/04/2014
Feature review · Desktop processor
Verdict
The Intel Pentium G3220 is a basic dual-core Haswell chip that suits simple PCs, but lacks Hyper-Threading, Turbo Boost and strong built-in graphics.
7.0
phoronix.com
≈ estimated
22/12/2013
Linux benchmark · Desktop processor
Verdict
The Intel Pentium G3220 gives decent Linux performance and better graphics than older Ivy Bridge chips, but has only two cores.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Pentium G3220

  • Excellent value for money for budget-conscious builders
  • Strong performance for everyday tasks like web browsing, office applications, and Skype
  • Efficient power consumption and runs cool, making it suitable for HTPC or home server builds
  • Surprisingly capable in gaming when paired with a mid-range discrete GPU
  • Responsive 'snappy' feel for basic desktop use, especially when paired with an SSD
  • Reliable and stable for low-demand applications like pfSense routers

What customers don't like about Intel Pentium G3220

  • Lacks Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost features found in higher-end Core i3/i5 processors
  • Weak integrated graphics (IGP) struggle with modern gaming and high-resolution 4K or 3D content
  • Limited multitasking and heavy workload capabilities due to having only two threads
  • Overclocking is heavily restricted due to locked BLCK frequencies
  • Higher power consumption compared to some similarly priced low-power competitors like the AMD Athlon 5350

Verdict

The Intel Pentium G3220 is a dual-core, budget-friendly desktop processor based on the 22nm Haswell architecture, featuring a 3.00 GHz base frequency and 3 MB of Intel Smart Cache. Launched in Q3 2013 for the LGA 1150 socket, it supports up to 32 GB of dual-channel DDR3-1333 memory and includes integrated Intel HD Graphics with a 1.10 GHz maximum dynamic frequency. Main pros include its low 53W-54W TDP for power efficiency, ECC memory support, and solid performance in single-threaded tasks and light gaming relative to its price. However, key cons include the lack of Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost technologies, a locked multiplier that prevents overclocking, and limited performance in modern, multi-threaded applications or high-end gaming.

Compare Intel Pentium G3220 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 G3220 and other processors

No results found