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 G6400 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£60PassMark multi-core score:4092N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1200TDP (Thermal design power):58 W

Intel Pentium Gold G6400 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 7 expert and video reviews and 3 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Pentium Gold G6400
5.1/10

Overall score

Score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

40%

4.1

Technical score

25%

4.1

Reviews score

25%

8.1

List score

10%

4.1

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 96% of processors
6.6

Value for money

Value for money
6.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

▼Worse than 86%
4.1

Technical score

Technical score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

60%

3.2

Performance

18%

3.8

Architecture

10%

5.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated graphics

▼Worse than 83%
4.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 89% of models

4.1

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.3

Average grade

20%

8.4

Popularity

Grades by review (7)
2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 89%
8.1

List score

List score
8.1/ 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 (3)
List score: in 3 of 87 lists (3%)
★Better than 95%
  • intel-pentium-gold-g6400
  • intel-pentium-gold-g6400
  • intel-pentium-gold-g6400
  • intel-pentium-gold-g6400
  • intel-pentium-gold-g6400
intel-pentium-gold-g6400
intel-pentium-gold-g6400
intel-pentium-gold-g6400
intel-pentium-gold-g6400
intel-pentium-gold-g6400
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 G6400

Based on 1 · 4

Reviewers are split on gaming frame rates, with some finding them perfectly fine and others falling short.
Mixed views
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Intel Pentium Gold G6400

Based on 46 owners sharing their experience in online comments

48%positive13%mixed39%negative

Owners appreciate its gaming ability, everyday usefulness, and low cost, while weak or uneven game performance is the main complaint.

What owners dislike

  • Gaming performance is uneven: owners report very low frame rates in demanding games like Valorant, Roblox and Fortnite on low settings, and stuttering when firing weapons.13
  • Owners with only one 8GB RAM stick report stutter and worse gaming performance; adding RAM or using 12–16GB helped them.5

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Pentium Gold G6400

Technical score
Technical score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components:

60%

3.2

Performance

18%

3.8

Architecture

10%

5.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated graphics

4.1
Reviews score
4.1
List score
8.1
Value for money
Value for money
6.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components:

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.6
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
LGA1200
This processor uses the LGA1200 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 5.2% of processors.
Chipset
Z590, H570, B560, H510, Z490, H470, B460, H410, Q470, W480
This processor supports Z590, H570, B560, H510, Z490, H470, B460, H410, Q470, W480 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 64.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 76.7% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x4 GHz which is lower than that of 75.9% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
4,092
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 4,092 in PassMark, which is lower than 77.7% of processors.
Show more
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
128 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to that of 14.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
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
2,666 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,666 MHz, which is lower than that of 56.7% of processors and equal to 7.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2666 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2666 MHz, which is lower than that of 59.8% of processors and equal to 7.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 610
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 610 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 56.4% of processors and equal to that in 1.6% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
12
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 12 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 62.7% of processors and equal to 9.2% 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), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 73.1% of processors and equal to 2.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
58 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 58 W which is higher than that of 66.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
58 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 58 W which is higher than that of 66.3% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
58 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 58 W which is lower than that of 54.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Pentium Gold G6400 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.
  • 90.9% faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (760 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    760 vs 398.015
  • 44.6% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (98 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    98 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 62.3% faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (551.9 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    551.92 vs 340.075
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1200 vs FP5).
    LGA1200 vs FP5
  • 4.17x cheaper
    Intel Pentium Gold G6400 is cheaper than the average processor (£60 vs £250).
    £60 vs £250
  • 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
  • 4.17x cheaper
    Intel Pentium Gold G6400 is cheaper than the average processor (£60 vs £250).
    £60 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1200 vs FP5).
    LGA1200 vs FP5
  • 90.9% faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (760 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    760 vs 398.015
  • 62.3% faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (551.9 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    551.92 vs 340.075
  • 12 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (40 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    40 vs 28
  • 44.6% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (98 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    98 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
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 38.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models

    4.1

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.1 vs 6.7
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 64.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,092 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,092 vs 11,469
  • 68.4% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,648 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,648 vs 5,209
  • 45% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (844 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    844 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.
  • 43.1% lower sentiment score
    4.1 vs 7.2
  • 38.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models

    4.1

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.1 vs 6.7
  • 43.1% lower sentiment score
    4.1 vs 7.2
  • 11.1% worse value for money
    Intel Pentium Gold G6400 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.56 vs 7.3).
    6.56 vs 7.29
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, 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, 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
  • 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
  • 64.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,092 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,092 vs 11,469
  • 68.4% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,648 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,648 vs 5,209
  • 45% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (844 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    844 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
  • 15.3% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (415 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    415 vs 490
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 4.5% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,443 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,443 vs 2,558
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    128 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 16.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,666 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,666 MHz vs 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
  • 11.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (41.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    41.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2666 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,666 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 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), JPEG (HW decode/encode) 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), JPEG (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    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
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 28.9% higher base power
    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
    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

7.0
Rojo Tech
≈ estimated
23/12/2022
Q&A · community questions on gaming performance
Verdict
Intel Pentium Gold G6400 runs games well with 16GB of dual-channel RAM, but heavy multitasking reduces its performance.
6.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
19/08/2020
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks vs Athlon 3000G
Verdict
Intel Pentium Gold G6400 is a decent starting point for cheap builds if priced right, though a Core i3 is preferred.
8.0
BudgetGamingReviewed
≈ estimated
25/02/2021
Game benchmark · GTA 5 at 720p, low settings
Verdict
Intel Pentium Gold G6400 is surprisingly playable in GTA 5 at 720p low settings, but 1080p drops to around 20 fps.
4.0
PC H/W and Tech Unboxings 🔥
≈ estimated
04/11/2020
Hands-on test · motherboard upgrade and performance check
Verdict
Intel Pentium Gold G6400 performed poorly, well below expectations, and the Z490 upgrade's benefit is still unclear.
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
10/03/2021
Lab test · Non-gaming budget CPU
Verdict
The Pentium Gold G6400 is a sensible choice for everyday home PCs, but its weak graphics limit it to non-gaming builds.
8.0
au.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
11/03/2021
Hands-on test · Non-gaming desktop
Verdict
The Intel Pentium Gold G6400 suits non-gaming home PCs with its 4 GHz dual-core speed, though weak graphics and the LGA1200 socket hold it back.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Pentium Gold G6400

  • Excellent value for money for budget-conscious builders
  • High 4.0 GHz base clock speed provides snappiness for everyday tasks
  • Supports Hyper-Threading, allowing it to handle light multitasking better than older dual-cores
  • Very low power consumption (58W TDP) and low heat output
  • Reliable for office productivity, web browsing, and 4K video streaming
  • Significant upgrade over Intel Celeron and older Pentium models

What customers don't like about Intel Pentium Gold G6400

  • Weak integrated graphics (UHD 610) is unsuitable for modern gaming
  • Strictly dual-core, leading to performance bottlenecks in heavy multitasking or content creation
  • Lacks AVX support, which can cause compatibility issues with certain modern software and games
  • Stock cooler is often described as basic or noisy by some users
  • Limited longevity as modern software increasingly demands 4 or more physical cores

Verdict

The Intel Pentium Gold G6400 is a budget-friendly 10th Gen 'Comet Lake' desktop processor featuring 2 cores and 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, with a high 4.0 GHz base clock speed and 4MB of Intel Smart Cache. Built on a 14nm process for the LGA 1200 socket, it includes integrated Intel UHD Graphics 610 and supports up to 128GB of dual-channel DDR4-2666 memory with a 58W TDP. Its main advantages include a strong 4.0 GHz clock for reliable single-core performance in basic tasks, low power consumption, and compatibility with modern Intel 400-series chipsets. However, its primary drawbacks are the lack of Turbo Boost, limited multitasking capabilities due to the low core count, no AVX instruction support, and relatively weak integrated graphics for anything beyond light multimedia or office use.

Compare Intel Pentium Gold G6400 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 G6400 and other processors

No results found