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 Gold G5600 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£80PassMark multi-core score:3856N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):54 W

Intel Pentium Gold G5600 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 7 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Pentium Gold G5600
5.3/10

Overall score

Score
5.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

40%

4.2

Technical score

25%

4.2

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 93% of processors
6.7

Value for money

Value for money
6.7/ 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 83% of models
Score components

70%

5.3

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 83%
4.2

Technical score

Technical score
4.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Score components

60%

3.1

Performance

18%

4.8

Architecture

10%

5.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 80%
4.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

4.2

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%

8.4

Popularity

Grades by review (7)
7 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 87%
?

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-gold-g5600
  • intel-pentium-gold-g5600
  • intel-pentium-gold-g5600
  • intel-pentium-gold-g5600
intel-pentium-gold-g5600
intel-pentium-gold-g5600
intel-pentium-gold-g5600
intel-pentium-gold-g5600
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 Gold G5600

Based on 4

Reviewers agree the bundled cooler does its job and appreciate the multithreading, with few complaints raised.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Pentium Gold G5600

Technical score
Technical score
4.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Score components:

60%

3.1

Performance

18%

4.8

Architecture

10%

5.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated graphics

4.2
Reviews score
4.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.7/ 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 83% of models
Score components:

70%

5.3

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.7
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 300 Series
This processor supports Intel 300 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 55% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% 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, AVX, AVX2, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 66.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% 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 3.9 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.9 GHz which is lower than that of 76.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
3,856
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 3,856 in PassMark, which is lower than 78.8% 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
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% 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
64 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 64 KB which is smaller than that of 99.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% 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 UHD Graphics 630
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 45.6% of processors and equal to that in 8% 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/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
54 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 54 W which is higher than that of 60.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
54 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 54 W which is higher than that of 60.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
54 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 54 W which is lower than that of 66.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% 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
What reviewers say

Intel Pentium Gold G5600 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 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
  • 15.6% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (54 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    54 W vs 64 W
  • 3.13x cheaper
    Intel Pentium Gold G5600 is cheaper than the average processor (£80 vs £250).
    £80 vs £250
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 11 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (39 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    39 vs 28
  • 3.13x cheaper
    Intel Pentium Gold G5600 is cheaper than the average processor (£80 vs £250).
    £80 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
    LGA1151 vs FP5
  • 11 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (39 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    39 vs 28
  • 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
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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.
  • 15.6% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (54 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    54 W vs 64 W
  • 84.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (793 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    793 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • 37.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

    4.2

    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%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    7 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.2 vs 6.7
  • 66.4% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,856 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,856 vs 11,469
  • 48.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (793 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    793 vs 1,535
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 37.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

    4.2

    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%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    7 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.2 vs 6.7
  • 8.7% worse value for money
    Intel Pentium Gold G5600 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.7 vs 7.3).
    6.7 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, AVX, AVX2, 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, AVX, AVX2, 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
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 2 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2018 vs 2020).
    April 2018
    2018 vs 2020
  • 84.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (793 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    793 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • 66.4% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,856 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,856 vs 11,469
  • 48.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (793 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    793 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
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x3.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 60.5% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (134.3 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    134.28 vs 340.075
  • 11.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,260 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,260 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 83.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (64 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    64 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • 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
  • 20% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (37.5 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    37.5 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/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 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/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 20% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (54 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    54 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.0
gamersnexus.net
≈ estimated
11/05/2018
Benchmark review · Gaming and power
Verdict
The Intel Pentium Gold G5600 improves clearly on the G4560 in games, but it sits too close to Ryzen 3 and Core i3 chips to stand out.
7.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
12/02/2020
Benchmarks and daily use · Budget CPU
Verdict
The Pentium Gold G5600 is a quick dual-core for older single-threaded software and basic daily work, but weak graphics let the Ryzen 3 3200G outrun it.
7.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
24/07/2018
Lab test · Gaming and graphics
Verdict
The Intel Pentium Gold G5600 suits a gaming PC with a separate graphics card, but its built-in graphics fall short of the Ryzen 3 2200G.
7.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
12/02/2020
Lab benchmarks · Budget desktop chip
Verdict
The Pentium Gold G5600 is a snappy dual-core for older software and office work, but weak graphics and no Turbo Boost leave it behind Ryzen 3.
7.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
07/08/2018
Lab test · Gaming performance
Verdict
The Intel Pentium Gold G5600 is a good gaming chip with a graphics card, but its built-in graphics trail the Ryzen 3 2200G.
6.0
gamersnexus.net
≈ estimated
11/05/2018
Benchmark review · Gaming and power
Verdict
The Intel Pentium Gold G5600 improves clearly on the G4560 in games, but it sits too close to Ryzen 3 and Core i3 chips to stand out.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Pentium Gold G5600

  • Strong single-threaded performance for its class, beneficial for legacy software and web browsing
  • Supports Hyper-Threading (2 cores / 4 threads), offering a significant uplift over older dual-core Pentiums
  • Very low power consumption (operating at approximately 26W in multi-threaded workloads)
  • Includes integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630, capable of handling basic 1080p gaming and esports titles
  • Comes with a standard heatsink and pre-applied thermal paste for easy out-of-the-box installation

What customers don't like about Intel Pentium Gold G5600

  • Poor value proposition compared to similarly priced AMD Ryzen 3 processors that offer four physical cores
  • Lack of AVX instruction support hinders performance in modern creative tasks like video editing and rendering
  • Integrated graphics performance significantly trails behind AMD's Ryzen APU alternatives
  • Locked multiplier prevents any meaningful CPU overclocking
  • Occasional input lag and stuttering observed when multitasking or under heavy system loads

Verdict

The Intel Pentium Gold G5600 is a budget-friendly desktop processor based on the 14nm Coffee Lake architecture, featuring 2 cores and 4 threads with Hyper-Threading technology. It operates at a fixed base frequency of 3.9 GHz without Turbo Boost and includes 4MB of L3 Smart Cache, supporting DDR4-2400 memory and integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 at up to 1.1 GHz. Its primary strengths lie in strong single-threaded performance for office tasks, web browsing, and casual gaming, alongside a low 54W TDP for high power efficiency. However, its main drawbacks include a lack of overclocking capabilities, limited multi-core performance compared to quad-core competitors like the Ryzen 3 2200G, and a higher street price relative to similar entry-level chips.

Compare Intel Pentium Gold G5600 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 G5600 and other processors

No results found