OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£130PassMark benchmark result:1580N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1515TDP (Thermal design power):6 W

Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.8

Overall score

Score
3.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

90%

3.8

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 93% of processors
3.8

Technical score

Technical score
3.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
Score components

60%

2.8

Performance

18%

4.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

6.6

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 92% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £130

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 Gold 4415Y

Technical score
Technical score
3.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
Score components:

60%

2.8

Performance

18%

4.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

6.6

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated Graphics

3.8
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
5.6/ 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 90% of models
Score components:

60%

3.8

Overall score

40%

9.8

Price

5.6
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1515
CPU socket
FCBGA1515
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1515 CPU socket, which is older than that of 79.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
N. of physical cores
2
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
CPU threads
4
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 67.4% of processors and equal to 26.5% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.6 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.6 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.6 GHz which is lower than that of 96.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 33.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.2% of processors and equal to that of 29.3% of processors.
L3 cache
2 MB
L3 cache
2 MB
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 90.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
L2 cache
0.5 MB
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 84.7% of processors and equal to that of 15.3% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
L1 cache
128 KB
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.8% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
DDR memory version
DDR3
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.3% of processors and equal to that of 13.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,866 MHz
Maximum memory speed
1,866 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,866 MHz, which is lower than that of 84.4% of processors and equal to 2.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR3-1866 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR3-1866 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR3-1866 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.5% of processors and equal to 1.2% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 91.7% of processors and equal to 6.4% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 615
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 615
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 615 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 77.2% of processors and equal to that in 0.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Integrated GPU execution units
24
â–² Better than 49% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.3% of processors and equal to 21.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode)
â–² Better than 66% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 65.8% of processors and equal to 2% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
6 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
6 W
★ Better than 97% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 6 W which is lower than that of 97% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
6 W
Base power (PL1)
6 W
★ Better than 97% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 6 W which is lower than that of 96.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
6 W
Boost power (PL2)
6 W
★ Better than 98% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 6 W which is lower than that of 98.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 4.5 W
Show more

Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 86.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 90% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    6 W vs 60 W
  • 53.7% smaller die size
    Die size
    82 mm²
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (82 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    82 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 53.7% smaller die size
    Die size
    82 mm²
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (82 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    82 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 86.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 90% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    6 W vs 60 W
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 85.1% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    1,580
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,580 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,580 vs 10,572.5
  • 86.4% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    657
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (657 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    657 vs 4,829
  • 65.8% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    855
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (855 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    855 vs 2,500
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 78.9% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    311
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (311 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    311 vs 1,471
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 1.6 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 17.5% worse value for money
    Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y has worse value for money than the average processor (5.58 vs 6.6).
    5.58 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 3 years older release date
    Release date
    2017
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    April 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1515
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1515 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1515 vs FP4
  • 85.1% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    1,580
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,580 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,580 vs 10,572.5
  • 86.4% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    657
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (657 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    657 vs 4,829
  • 65.8% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    855
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (855 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    855 vs 2,500
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 78.9% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    311
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (311 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    311 vs 1,471
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 1.6 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 50% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 12 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    16
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (16 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    16 vs 28
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 80% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    0.5 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
    L2 per core
    0.25 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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 L1 cache
    L1 cache
    128 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    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
  • 75% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    2 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    2 MB vs 8 MB
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • 6 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    10
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (10 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    10 vs 16
  • 34.9% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    29.8 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (29.8 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    29.8 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 36.4% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    1,866 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1866 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    1,866 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    LPDDR3-1866 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR3-1866 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR3-1,866 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 75% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    16 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x4
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel HD Graphics 615
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 615 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 615 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode)
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
cpu.userbenchmark.com
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y HE8067702740018 - UserBenchmark
C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium 4415Y @ 1.60GHz - CPU Benchmarks
T
techradar.com
03/06/2019
Summary of the review
Teclast X4 2-in-1 laptop review
T
theguardian.com
06/09/2018
Summary of the review
Microsoft Surface Go review: tablet that's better for work than play
B
browser.geekbench.com
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium 4415Y Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser
L
leclaireur.fnac.com
10/11/2018
Summary of the review
Microsoft Surface Go Lab Test
(Translated)Show original
T
teknofilo.com
22/09/2018
Summary of the review
Surface Go: In-Depth Review and Opinion
(Translated)Show original
D
digitec.ch
22/08/2018
Summary of the review
Surface Go: Love at Second Sight
(Translated)Show original
S
smartworld.it
21/03/2019
Summary of the review
Microsoft Surface Go Review
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshw.it
03/12/2018
Summary of the review
Surface Go Review: It would be perfect if it cost a little less", "Surface Go Review: Almost perfect, if only it were cheaper
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y

  • Efficient for basic web browsing and document editing (Office suite)
  • Extremely low power consumption (6W TDP), enabling fanless and thin designs
  • Reliable for light multimedia tasks and video streaming
  • Capable of running older or very light games (e.g., Minecraft, early 2000s titles)
  • Affordable entry-point for portable devices like the original Surface Go
  • Supports modern hardware decoding for H.265/HEVC and VP9 codecs

What we don't like about Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y

  • Lacks Turbo Boost, leading to sluggish single-thread performance
  • Noticeable lag and stuttering when multitasking or handling heavy web pages
  • Poor performance in modern gaming, often struggling to reach playable frame rates
  • Becomes a bottleneck for demanding software like Adobe Photoshop or Lightroom
  • Slow system wake-up and background sync times (e.g., Outlook, system updates)
  • Limited longevity as it is no longer competitive with newer entry-level CPUs
  • Officially unsupported by Windows 11, requiring workarounds for installation

Verdict

The Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y is a low-power, entry-level mobile processor based on the Kaby Lake architecture, featuring 2 cores and 4 threads with a fixed base clock of 1.60 GHz. Built on a 14nm process with a minimal 6W TDP, it integrates Intel HD Graphics 615 and supports up to 16GB of LPDDR3-1866 or DDR3L-1600 memory. Its main advantages include high energy efficiency for thin, fanless designs like the original Surface Go, and consistent performance for basic productivity tasks such as web browsing and document editing. However, it lacks Turbo Boost technology, resulting in relatively weak single-thread performance, and its older architecture struggled with demanding modern applications or high-end gaming even at launch.

Compare Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y 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 Gold 4415Y and other processors

No results found