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 6405U Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£130PassMark benchmark result:2355N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1528TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Pentium Gold 6405U Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.6

Overall score

Score
3.6/ 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 95% of models
Score components

90%

3.6

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 95% of processors
3.6

Technical score

Technical score
3.6/ 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 94% of models
Score components

60%

2.8

Performance

18%

3.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 94% 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

*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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Pentium Gold 6405U

Technical score
Technical score
3.6/ 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 94% of models
Score components:

60%

2.8

Performance

18%

3.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated Graphics

3.6
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 6405U 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
5.5/ 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 92% of models
Score components:

60%

3.6

Overall score

40%

9.8

Price

5.5
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
FCBGA1528
CPU socket
FCBGA1528
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1528 CPU socket, which is older than that of 77.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Chipset
Intel 400 Series, Intel 500 Series
Chipset
Intel 400 Series, Intel 500 Series
â–² Better than 62% of models
This processor supports Intel 400 Series, Intel 500 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 62.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
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 2.4 GHz & 4x 2.4 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.4 GHz & 4x 2.4 GHz
â–² Better than 51% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x2.4 GHz & 4x2.4 GHz which is higher than that of 51.4% 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
DDR4/LPDDR3
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR3
â–² Better than 58% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR3, which is newer than that of 58% of processors and equal to that of 2.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 63% of processors and equal to 12.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to 11.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 28.4% of processors and equal to 27.5% 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 UHD Graphics 610
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 610
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 610 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 57.8% of processors and equal to that in 1.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
12
Integrated GPU execution units
12
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 12 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 62.7% of processors and equal to 9.3% 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)
15 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
â–² Better than 78% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 16% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Base power (PL1)
15 W
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
?
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.
Show more

Intel Pentium Gold 6405U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR3
    â–² Better than 58% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR3
    â–² Better than 58% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 77.7% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,355
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,355 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,355 vs 10,572.5
  • 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
  • 77.7% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,077
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,077 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,077 vs 4,829
  • 45.8% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,355
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,355 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,355 vs 2,500
  • 65% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    515
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (515 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    515 vs 1,471
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Comet Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 45.8% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    265
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (265 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    265 vs 489
  • 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
  • 19.2% worse value for money
    Intel Pentium Gold 6405U has worse value for money than the average processor (5.51 vs 6.6).
    5.51 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, 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
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1528
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1528 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1528 vs FP4
  • 77.7% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,355
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,355 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,355 vs 10,572.5
  • 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
  • 77.7% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,077
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,077 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,077 vs 4,829
  • 45.8% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,355
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,355 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,355 vs 2,500
  • 65% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    515
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (515 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    515 vs 1,471
  • 45.8% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    265
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (265 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    265 vs 489
  • 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
  • No Turbo Boost
    Turbo Boost version
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor does not support Turbo Boost, the average processor does. 88.6% of processors support Turbo Boost.
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Comet Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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 PCIe version
    PCIe version
    2.0
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2.0 vs 3.0
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    12
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    12 vs 16
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    37.5 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (37.5 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    37.5 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-2400 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    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
  • 18.2% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,400 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    12
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    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
  • 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
cpubenchmark.net
Q2 2020
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium 6405U @ 2.40GHz - CPU Benchmarks
V
valid.x86.fr
19/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium 6405U (4T) CPU-Z Benchmark
(Translated)Show original
C
cpu-monkey.com
05/02/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium Gold G6405 vs Intel Pentium Gold 6405U - Benchmarks
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
03/07/2020
Summary of the review
Lenovo IdeaPad 3 15 Series - Laptop Review
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Pentium Gold 6405U

  • Efficient for basic tasks like web browsing, emails, and office software
  • Good value for money in the budget/entry-level market
  • Low power consumption (15W TDP) leads to long battery life in many laptops
  • Runs cool and quiet, often not requiring aggressive fan use
  • Reliable performance for simple multitasking due to Hyper-Threading (2 cores, 4 threads)
  • Capable of running older or low-demand games (e.g., Minecraft, CS:GO) at low settings

What we don't like about Intel Pentium Gold 6405U

  • Lacks a 'Turbo Boost' feature, limiting peak performance under heavy loads
  • Significantly slow when paired with a traditional HDD instead of an SSD
  • Struggles with modern, demanding games and heavy video editing
  • Integrated UHD Graphics 610 is weak compared to newer entry-level chips
  • Frequent reports of hanging or 100% CPU usage when handling multiple browser tabs or updates
  • No longer competitive with newer budget processors like the Intel Core i3 or N-series

Verdict

The Intel Pentium Gold 6405U is an entry-level, dual-core mobile processor from the 10th Gen Comet Lake series, released in late 2019 using a 14nm lithography. It features 2 cores and 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, a fixed base clock speed of 2.40 GHz (with no Turbo Boost), 2 MB of Intel Smart Cache, and a 15W TDP. Main pros include its power efficiency for thin-and-light laptops, support for up to 64GB of DDR4-2400 memory, and integrated Intel UHD Graphics 610 which supports 4K at 60Hz. However, its primary cons are the lack of Turbo Boost technology, a low core count that limits multitasking, and its unsuitability for demanding applications or modern gaming.

Compare Intel Pentium Gold 6405U 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 6405U and other processors

No results found