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 G5400 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£130PassMark benchmark result:3734N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):58 W

Intel Pentium Gold G5400 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.3

Overall score

Score
4.3/ 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 81% of models
Score components

90%

3.8

Technical score

10%

9.3

User score

â–¼Worse than 81% 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%

2.4

Performance

18%

5.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

6.2

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 92% of processors
9.3

User score

User score
9.3/ 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
★ Better than 92% of models
Score components

70%

9.0

User ratings

30%

10

Number of reviews

Based on 938 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
★Better than 92% of processors
  • intel-pentium-gold-g5400
  • intel-pentium-gold-g5400
  • intel-pentium-gold-g5400
intel-pentium-gold-g5400
intel-pentium-gold-g5400
intel-pentium-gold-g5400

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 G5400

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%

2.4

Performance

18%

5.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

6.2

Integrated Graphics

3.8
User score
User score
9.3/ 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
★ Better than 92% of models
Score components

70%

9.0

User ratings

30%

10

Number of reviews

Based on 938 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
9.3
Popularity
Popularity
10.0/ 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
★ Better than 92% of models
Popularity:
Intel Pentium Gold G5400 has a popularity score of 10 points, which is higher than that of 91.9% of products in this category.
10
Value for money
Value for money
6.0/ 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 76% of models
Score components:

60%

4.3

Overall score

40%

9.8

Price

6.0
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
desktop
Processor type
desktop
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 56% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1151
CPU socket
LGA1151
â–² Better than 61% of models
This processor uses the LGA1151 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 60.7% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
Chipset
Z390, Z370, H370, B365, B360, H310
Chipset
Z390, Z370, H370, B365, B360, H310
â–² Better than 57% of models
This processor supports Z390, Z370, H370, B365, B360, H310 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 56.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% 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 3.7 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.7 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.7 GHz which is lower than that of 76.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% 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
4 MB
L3 cache
4 MB
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 70.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.6% 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
?
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
DDR memory version
DDR4
â–¼ Worse than 42% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 26.3% of processors and equal to that of 31.7% 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)
?
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
350 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
â–² Better than 42% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.3% of processors and equal to that of 26.1% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
This processor supports VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 61.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
58 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
58 W
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 58 W which is higher than that of 68.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
58 W
Base power (PL1)
58 W
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 58 W which is higher than that of 68.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
58 W
Boost power (PL2)
58 W
â–² Better than 51% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 58 W which is lower than that of 51.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Pentium Gold G5400 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • Supports ECC memory
    ECC memory support
    yes
    â–² Better than 68% of models
    This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.
  • 9.97x more popular
    Intel Pentium Gold G5400 is more popular than the average processor (9.97 vs 1).
    9.97 vs 1
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    Die size
    126 mm²
    â–² Better than 70% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
  • 16.1% higher user score
    User score
    9.3/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Intel Pentium Gold G5400
    the average processor
    Intel Pentium Gold G5400 has a higher user score than the average processor (9.29 vs 8.000).
    9.29 vs 8
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    LGA1151
    â–² Better than 61% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP4).
    LGA1151 vs FP4
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Coffee Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 50% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 9.97x more popular
    Intel Pentium Gold G5400 is more popular than the average processor (9.97 vs 1).
    9.97 vs 1
  • 16.1% higher user score
    User score
    9.3/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Intel Pentium Gold G5400
    the average processor
    Intel Pentium Gold G5400 has a higher user score than the average processor (9.29 vs 8.000).
    9.29 vs 8
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    LGA1151
    â–² Better than 61% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP4).
    LGA1151 vs FP4
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    This processor provides more 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 Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    Die size
    126 mm²
    â–² Better than 70% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Coffee Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 50% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Supports ECC memory
    ECC memory support
    yes
    â–² Better than 68% of models
    This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • 84.6% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    743
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (743 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    743 vs 4,829
  • 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
  • 64.7% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    3,734
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,734 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,734 vs 10,572.5
  • 73.3% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    744
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (744 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    744 vs 2,791
  • 49.4% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    744
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (744 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    744 vs 1,471
  • 69.1% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    151
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (151 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    151 vs 489
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 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
  • 9.9% worse value for money
    Intel Pentium Gold G5400 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.97 vs 6.6).
    5.97 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    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).
    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
  • 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
  • 2 years older release date
    Release date
    2018
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2018 vs 2020).
    April 2018
    2018 vs 2020
  • 84.6% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    743
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (743 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    743 vs 4,829
  • 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
  • 64.7% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    3,734
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,734 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,734 vs 10,572.5
  • 73.3% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    744
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (744 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    744 vs 2,791
  • 49.4% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    744
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (744 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    744 vs 1,471
  • 69.1% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    151
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (151 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    151 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
  • 12.8% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,181
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,181 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,181 vs 2,500
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 3.7 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3.7 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x3.7 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 50% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    4 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    4 MB vs 8 MB
  • 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 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
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 28.9% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    58 W
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (58 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    58 W vs 45 W
  • 28.9% higher TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    58 W
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (58 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    58 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

N
ntcompatible.com
25/05/2018
Summary of the review
Budget King: Intel Pentium Gold G5400 Review and more
T
techspot.com
30/04/2018
Summary of the review
The Best Value CPU: Pentium Gold G5400 vs. Ryzen 3 2200G
C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium Gold G5400 @ 3.70GHz - CPU Benchmarks Reviewers highlighted the Intel Pentium Gold G5400 as a budget-friendly option suitable for basic...
B
browser.geekbench.com
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium Gold G5400 Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser
E
elefacts.de
23/06/2020
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium G5400 vs G5400T - Energy and Efficiency Comparison
(Translated)Show original
C
chip.de
10/09/2018
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium Gold G5400 Review - Low-End Processor for Little Money
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbase.de
11/05/2018
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium Gold G5400 Review: Faster than the Pentium G4560, but not yet better
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshw.it
07/08/2018
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium Gold G5600 and G5400 Review
(Translated)Show original
C
ct.nl
11/12/2018
Summary of the review
Fujitsu D3644-B: Efficient motherboard for small servers (Including G5400 test results)
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
16/04/2018
Summary of the review
Budget King: Intel Pentium Gold G5400 Review - iGPU Benchmarks: Dota 2 (1920x1080)
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
19/11/2019
Summary of the review
AMD Athlon 3000G Review: Two Unlocked SMT Cores for $49
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
02/04/2019
Summary of the review
Cinebench 20, Ray Tracing, and Energy: New Benchmarks at a Glance
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on 938 buyer reviews from online shops.
Reviews last updated: May 2026 · How we calculate this
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about Intel Pentium Gold G5400

  • Excellent value for budget-conscious builds and basic office tasks.
  • Low power consumption (54W/58W TDP) making it energy efficient for 24/7 use in NAS or HTPC setups.
  • Includes hyper-threading (2 cores, 4 threads), providing a performance boost over previous dual-core Pentiums.
  • Runs cool even with the stock Intel cooler, often idling around 30°C.
  • Good single-core performance for snappiness in web browsers and productivity apps.
  • Integrated UHD Graphics 610 is sufficient for 4K video playback and very light gaming.
  • Easy installation with pre-applied thermal paste on the included stock cooler.

What we don't like about Intel Pentium Gold G5400

  • Limited to 2 physical cores, which leads to stutters and freezing in modern, CPU-intensive games.
  • Weak integrated graphics performance compared to AMD Ryzen competitors (e.g., Ryzen 3 2200G).
  • Locked multiplier means it cannot be officially overclocked to gain extra performance.
  • Limited multitasking capabilities; struggles with heavy workloads like simultaneous streaming and gaming.
  • Lacks support for Intel Optane memory technology.
  • May bottleneck mid-range dedicated graphics cards like the GTX 1060 in certain scenarios.
  • No longer the best value proposition when compared to newer quad-core budget processors.

Verdict

The Intel Pentium Gold G5400 is a budget-friendly desktop processor from the 8th Gen Coffee Lake architecture, featuring 2 physical cores and 4 threads thanks to Intel Hyper-Threading technology. It operates at a fixed base frequency of 3.70 GHz with no turbo boost capability, includes a 4 MB Intel Smart Cache, and has a Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 58W. Supporting up to 64 GB of dual-channel DDR4-2400 memory and ECC error correction, it also integrates Intel UHD Graphics 610, which supports 4K resolution at 60Hz via DisplayPort. Its main advantages include exceptional power efficiency, low operating temperatures, and solid single-thread performance that ensures a snappy experience for office tasks, web browsing, and 4K media consumption. However, its primary drawbacks are the lack of overclocking support, the absence of Turbo Boost, and significant performance limitations in modern AAA gaming or multi-threaded productivity workloads due to its low core count.

Compare Intel Pentium Gold G5400 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 G5400 and other processors

No results found