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 Silver J5040 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£110PassMark multi-core score:3251N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.2 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1090TDP (Thermal design power):10 W

Intel Pentium Silver J5040 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.2/10

Overall score

Score
5.2/ 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 94% of models
Score components

40%

4.0

Technical score

25%

4.0

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 94% 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components

70%

5.2

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

â–¼Worse than 86%
4.0

Technical score

Technical score
4.0/ 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 85% of models
Score components

60%

3.2

Performance

18%

4.4

Architecture

10%

3.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 85%
4.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.0/ 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 92% of models

4.0

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

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
2 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.
â–¼Worse than 92%
?

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
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £110
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 Silver J5040

Technical score
Technical score
4.0/ 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 85% of models
Score components:

60%

3.2

Performance

18%

4.4

Architecture

10%

3.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

4.0
Reviews score
4.0
List score
?
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components:

70%

5.2

Overall score

30%

9.9

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
FCBGA1090
This processor uses the FCBGA1090 CPU socket, which is older than that of 96.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
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, F16C, AES, SHA
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, F16C, AES, SHA instruction sets, which is narrower support than 65.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% 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
3.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.2 GHz which is lower than that of 90.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.0 GHz which is lower than that of 74.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
3,251
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 3,251 in PassMark, which is lower than 84% 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
0 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.9% of processors and equal to that of 6.1% of processors.
L2 cache
4 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 53.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L1 cache
224 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 224 KB which is smaller than that of 78.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% 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)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
8 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 8 GB of memory, which is less than 98.3% of processors and equal to 1.6% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Intel UHD Graphics 605
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 605
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 605 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 58.1% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
18
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 18 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 56.1% of processors and equal to 0.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
250 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 250 MHz which is lower than that of 96.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 53.6% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
10 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 10 W which is lower than that of 94.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
10 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 10 W which is lower than that of 94.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
10 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 10 W which is lower than that of 95.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Pentium Silver J5040 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 5.18x faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (2060 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    2,060 vs 398.015
  • 77.8% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 84.4% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    10 W vs 64 W
  • 47.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (93 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    93 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 77.8% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • 5.18x faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (2060 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    2,060 vs 398.015
  • 47.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (93 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    93 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 77.8% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 84.4% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    10 W vs 64 W
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 77.8% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • 40.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.0/ 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 92% of models

    4.0

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

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 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.
    4.0 vs 6.7
  • 78.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,115 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,115 vs 5,209
  • 71.7% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,251 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,251 vs 11,469
  • 47.3% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,347 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,347 vs 2,558
  • 72.8% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (417 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    417 vs 1,535
  • 27.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Gemini Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
    Gemini Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 40.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.0/ 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 92% of models

    4.0

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

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 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.
    4.0 vs 6.7
  • 10.2% worse value for money
    Intel Pentium Silver J5040 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.61 vs 7.3).
    6.61 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, F16C, AES, SHA 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, F16C, AES, SHA 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
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1090 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1090 vs FP5
  • 78.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,115 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,115 vs 5,209
  • 71.7% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,251 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,251 vs 11,469
  • 47.3% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,347 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,347 vs 2,558
  • 72.8% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (417 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    417 vs 1,535
  • 27.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 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
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 8 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (20 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    20 vs 28
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Gemini Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
    Gemini Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 41.7% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (224 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    224 KB vs 384 KB
  • 10 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (6 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    6 vs 16
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Older PCIe version
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 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
  • 87.5% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (8 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    8 GB vs 64 GB
  • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    38.4 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), 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), VP8 (HW decode/encode), 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)
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

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

9.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
10/11/2020
Build and hands-on test · emulation, gaming, 4K, power draw
Verdict
Intel Pentium Silver J5040 is a silent, low-power mini PC that handles emulation, light gaming and 4K video well.
Overview video
Shop video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Pentium Silver J5040

  • High energy efficiency with a 10W TDP, making it ideal for 24/7 operation such as home servers or NAS systems.
  • Supports silent, fanless cooling solutions for quiet computing environments.
  • Cost-effective option for budget-friendly mini-PC builds and basic office tasks.
  • Capable of handling basic 4K video playback with hardware support for VP9 and H.265 (HEVC).
  • Reliable for simple web browsing and word processing applications.

What customers don't like about Intel Pentium Silver J5040

  • Weak overall performance that struggles with heavy multitasking and modern browsers with many open tabs.
  • Very poor gaming capabilities; modern titles are unplayable, and even older games like GTA V experience significant FPS drops.
  • Lacks support for modern high-speed interfaces like PCIe 3.0/4.0 and NVMe SSDs, limiting potential storage speeds.
  • Platform is considered a 'dead end' with no upgrade path as the CPU is soldered to the motherboard (SoC).
  • Missing support for AVX2 instructions, which prevents some modern software from running at all.

Verdict

The Intel Pentium Silver J5040 is a quad-core 'Gemini Lake Refresh' SoC. It is designed for low-power desktops and mini-PCs. It features 4 cores, 4 threads, and a 4 MB L2 cache. The base frequency is 2.0 GHz, with a burst frequency up to 3.2 GHz. It integrates Intel UHD Graphics 605 with 18 execution units. Advantages include a low 10W TDP, suitable for fanless and energy-efficient builds. It supports up to 8 GB of dual-channel DDR4/LPDDR4-2400 memory and offers hardware-accelerated 4K video playback at 60Hz. Its performance is limited to basic office tasks and light media consumption. It lacks Hyper-Threading. Because it is typically soldered to the motherboard (BGA), it cannot be upgraded or replaced.

Compare Intel Pentium Silver J5040 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 Silver J5040 and other processors

No results found