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 G4600 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£25PassMark multi-core score:3627N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):51 W

Intel Pentium G4600 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 G4600
4.8/10

Overall score

Score
4.8/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

40%

3.9

Technical score

25%

3.9

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

3.9

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 99% of processors
6.3

Value for money

Value for money
6.3/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

70%

4.8

Overall score

30%

10

Price

▼Worse than 93%
3.9

Technical score

Technical score
3.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components

60%

2.7

Performance

18%

4.5

Architecture

10%

5.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated graphics

▼Worse than 89%
3.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models

3.9

Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.2

Average grade

20%

8.2

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
3 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 1 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.
▼Worse than 93%
?

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-g4600
  • intel-pentium-g4600
  • intel-pentium-g4600
intel-pentium-g4600
intel-pentium-g4600
intel-pentium-g4600
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 G4600

Based on 3 · 1

Reviewers' main complaint is its modest clock speed and lack of turbo boost, with little else standing out either way.
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Intel Pentium G4600

Based on 45 owners sharing their experience in online comments

40%positive11%mixed49%negative

Owners like its value and gaming potential, while low frame rates and struggles with newer games remain common concerns.

What owners dislike

  • Some owners get far lower FPS in GTA V and CS than shown in the video, often around 20-30 FPS, which they blame on the setup.6
  • Some owners get only 20-45 FPS in Counter-Strike, far below the 130-150 FPS they expected, and report no clear fix.6
  • Owners say the processor hits about 98% load in newer games, causing freezes, and a faster CPU is needed for newer titles.5
  • GTA V runs at 20-30 FPS and slideshows in cities for several owners, even with 8 GB of RAM and a GTX 1050 or HD 630 graphics.4
  • Some owners get only 15-20 FPS in GTA even at the lowest resolution and settings, and report lag on Windows 8.1.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Pentium G4600

Technical score
Technical score
3.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components:

60%

2.7

Performance

18%

4.5

Architecture

10%

5.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated graphics

3.9
Reviews score
3.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.3/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components:

70%

4.8

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.3
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
LGA1151
This processor uses the LGA1151 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 9% of processors.
Chipset
Intel 200 Series
This processor supports Intel 200 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 49.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% 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
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 76.7% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% 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
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
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.6 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.6 GHz which is lower than that of 77.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
3,627
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 3,627 in PassMark, which is lower than 81.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% 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
DDR3L/DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR3L/DDR4, which is older than that of 78.6% of processors and equal to that of 5.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 11.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to 10.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 630
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 71.9% of processors and equal to that in 2.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.1% of processors and equal to 20.8% 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), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
51 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 51 W which is higher than that of 59.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
51 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 51 W which is higher than that of 59.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
51 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 51 W which is lower than that of 70% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% 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 G4600 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.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    126 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 10x cheaper
    Intel Pentium G4600 is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • 20.3% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (51 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    51 W vs 64 W
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
    LGA1151 vs FP5
  • 10x cheaper
    Intel Pentium G4600 is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
    LGA1151 vs FP5
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    126 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 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.
  • 20.3% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (51 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    51 W vs 64 W
  • 41.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.9/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 93% of models

    3.9

    Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    3 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 1 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.
    3.9 vs 6.7
  • 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
  • 68.4% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,627 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,627 vs 11,469
  • 70.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,520 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,520 vs 5,209
  • 51.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (739 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    739 vs 1,535
  • 73.6% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (739 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    739 vs 2,804.5
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 45.8% lower sentiment score
    3.9 vs 7.2
  • 41.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.9/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 93% of models

    3.9

    Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    3 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 1 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.
    3.9 vs 6.7
  • 45.8% lower sentiment score
    3.9 vs 7.2
  • 14.8% worse value for money
    Intel Pentium G4600 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.34 vs 7.3).
    6.34 vs 7.29
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES 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, AES 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, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 3 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    January 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 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
  • 68.4% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,627 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,627 vs 11,469
  • 70.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,520 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,520 vs 5,209
  • 73.6% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (739 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    739 vs 2,804.5
  • 51.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (739 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    739 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 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
  • 16.2% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,143 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,143 vs 2,558
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x3.6 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% 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
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 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
  • 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
  • 25% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4
  • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec 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), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 630 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 630 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.

Video reviews

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

6.0
Cheap Bastard
≈ estimated
16/08/2020
Benchmark · 10 games at low to highest settings
Verdict
Intel Pentium G4600 is surprisingly strong for esports at low settings, but too few cores hold it back for everyday use.
Not graded
Not graded
Shop video
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
hardwaresecrets.com
≈ estimated
31/03/2023
Benchmark test · Core i3 comparison
Verdict
The Intel Pentium G4600 is a two-core chip that trails the Core i3-7100 by 6 to 13 percent in most tests, but ties it in some 3D and gaming tests.
4.3
chip.de
✓ explicit
13/02/2018
Lab test · Dual-core desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Pentium G4600 is a basic dual-core desktop chip with four threads and built-in graphics, but its CPU results are weak.
6.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
25/08/2017
Lab test · Dual-core desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Pentium G4600 is a power-efficient dual-core chip that comes close to Core i3 speed for everyday computing, but adds little new over Skylake.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Pentium G4600

  • Exceptional value for budget gaming and office builds
  • Includes Hyper-Threading (2 cores / 4 threads), mimicking i3 performance
  • Strong integrated Intel HD 630 graphics for casual gaming and 4K media
  • Low power consumption (51W TDP) and high energy efficiency
  • Capable of handling light multitasking and everyday tasks smoothly
  • Surprising Linux performance compared to higher-end older generations

What customers don't like about Intel Pentium G4600

  • Lacks AVX/AVX2 instruction set support, limiting performance in some modern apps/VR
  • Dual-core architecture struggles with heavily threaded workloads and multitasking
  • Not officially supported for Windows 11 (requires 8th gen or newer)
  • Small L3 cache (3MB) can be a bottleneck in CPU-intensive tasks
  • Can run hot under heavy load with the stock heatsink
  • Multiplier is locked, preventing significant overclocking

Verdict

The Intel Pentium G4600 is a dual-core desktop processor from the 7th Gen Kaby Lake family, featuring 4 threads via Hyper-Threading and a 3.6 GHz base clock speed. Built on a 14nm process for the LGA 1151 socket, it includes 3MB of L3 cache, a 51W TDP, and integrated Intel HD Graphics 630 capable of 4K support at 60Hz. Its main pros include strong single-core performance for its class, excellent power efficiency, and a significant integrated graphics upgrade over previous Pentium models, making it a capable choice for budget office builds and light gaming. However, its primary cons are the lack of Turbo Boost, the absence of AVX/AVX2 instruction set support which can hinder modern productivity and VR apps, and its official lack of support for Windows 11.

Compare Intel Pentium G4600 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 G4600 and other processors

No results found