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 Silver N5000 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£130PassMark benchmark result:2590N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:2.7 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1090TDP (Thermal design power):6 W

Intel Pentium Silver N5000 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.3

Overall score

Score
3.3/ 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 99% of models
Score components

90%

3.3

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 99% of processors
3.3

Technical score

Technical score
3.3/ 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 99% of models
Score components

60%

1.9

Performance

18%

4.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

9.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 99% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £130

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 N5000

Technical score
Technical score
3.3/ 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 99% of models
Score components:

60%

1.9

Performance

18%

4.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

9.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated Graphics

3.3
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Pentium Silver N5000 has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
5.3/ 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 96% of models
Score components:

60%

3.3

Overall score

40%

9.8

Price

5.3
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1090
CPU socket
FCBGA1090
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1090 CPU socket, which is older than that of 96.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
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
4
N. of physical cores
4
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% 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
1
Threads per core
1
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
2.7 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
2.7 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.7 GHz which is lower than that of 96.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.1 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.1 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.1 GHz which is lower than that of 91.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% 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
0 MB
L3 cache
0 MB
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.6% of processors and equal to that of 6.4% of processors.
L2 cache
4 MB
L2 cache
4 MB
â–² Better than 55% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 55.4% of processors and equal to that of 9.3% of processors.
L1 cache
224 KB
L1 cache
224 KB
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 224 KB which is smaller than that of 78.1% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
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)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
8 GB
Maximum memory capacity
8 GB
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 8 GB of memory, which is less than 98.2% of processors and equal to 1.7% 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.
Intel UHD Graphics 605
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 605
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 605
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 605 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 59.5% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
18
Integrated GPU execution units
18
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 18 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 56% of processors and equal to 0.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
200 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
200 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 200 MHz which is lower than that of 96.7% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
?
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
6 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
6 W
★ Better than 97% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 6 W which is lower than that of 97% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
6 W
Base power (PL1)
6 W
★ Better than 97% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 6 W which is lower than that of 96.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
6 W
Boost power (PL2)
6 W
★ Better than 98% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 6 W which is lower than that of 98.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Pentium Silver N5000 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 86.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 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.
  • 90% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    6 W vs 60 W
  • 47.5% smaller die size
    Die size
    93 mm²
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
    L2 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • 47.5% smaller die size
    Die size
    93 mm²
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
    L2 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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
  • 60% larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    4 MB
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    4 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 86.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 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.
  • 90% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    6 W vs 60 W
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 82.2% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    858
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (858 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    858 vs 4,829
  • 75.5% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,590
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,590 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,590 vs 10,572.5
  • 55% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,124
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,124 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,124 vs 2,500
  • 76.5% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    345
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (345 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    345 vs 1,471
  • 37.2% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.7 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 83.2% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    469
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (469 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    469 vs 2,791
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Gemini Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Gemini Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Gemini Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 65.2% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    170
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (170 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    170 vs 489
  • 24.9% worse value for money
    Intel Pentium Silver N5000 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.25 vs 6.6).
    5.25 vs 6.56
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1090
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1090 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1090 vs FP4
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, AES, SHA
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 3 years older release date
    Release date
    2017
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    December 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • 82.2% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    858
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (858 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    858 vs 4,829
  • 75.5% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,590
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,590 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,590 vs 10,572.5
  • 55% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,124
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,124 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,124 vs 2,500
  • 76.5% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    345
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (345 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    345 vs 1,471
  • 37.2% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.7 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 83.2% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    469
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (469 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    469 vs 2,791
  • 65.2% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    170
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (170 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    170 vs 489
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 1.1 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 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
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 37.5% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 17 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    11
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (11 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    11 vs 28
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    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
  • 77.7% weaker overclocked performance
    PassMark overclocked benchmark result
    3,098
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <5.1k – >55k
    This processor has a lower overclocked performance than the average processor (3,098 vs 13,911). The average processor scores 13,911 in overclocked PassMark.
    3,098 vs 13,911
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Gemini Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Gemini Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Gemini Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 41.7% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    224 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    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
    PCIe lane count
    6
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (6 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    6 vs 16
  • Older PCIe version
    PCIe version
    2.0
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2.0 vs 3.0
  • 87.5% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    8 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x1/x1/x1/x1
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • 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
  • 16.2% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    38.4 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    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

Not graded yet
Not graded yet

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

L
laptopmedia.com
04/02/2020
Summary of the review
Intel Core i3-1005G1 vs Pentium Silver N5000 – this Pentium CPU is 35% slower but still the smarter choice here
C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium Silver N5000 @ 1.10GHz - CPU Benchmarks
L
laptopmedia.com
04/02/2020
Summary of the review
Intel Core i3-1005G1 vs Pentium Silver N5000 - This Pentium CPU is 35% slower but still the smarter choice here
N
notebookcheck.net
10/06/2019
Summary of the review
Acer Aspire 1 A114-32 (Pentium Silver N5000, eMMC, FHD) Laptop Review
N
notebookcheck.net
02/04/2019
Summary of the review
Asus E203MA (N5000, UHD605) Laptop Review
C
china-gadgets.de
02/10/2018
Summary of the review
CHUWI LapBook Air Review: A 14.1-inch Office Laptop Put to the Test
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbild.de
20/08/2019
Summary of the review
Laptops from 300 Euros: Affordable Laptops for the Home Office in Review
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
04/02/2020
Summary of the review
Intel Core i3-1005G1 vs Pentium Silver N5000 – this Pentium CPU is 35% slower but still the smarter choice here
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
23/10/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium Silver N5000 - specifications, benchmark tests and comparisons
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshw.it
10/03/2019
Summary of the review
A few days with the Microtech e-book Pro N5000
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
13/05/2019
Summary of the review
HP 15 (15-da0000) review - did we go back in time?
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
16/04/2020
Summary of the review
Acer Swift 1 (SF114-32) review - a budget machine done right
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Pentium Silver N5000

  • Excellent energy efficiency with a low 6W TDP, allowing for passive (fanless) cooling designs and long battery life
  • Capable of smooth 4K and Full HD video playback (VP9/H.265) due to integrated hardware acceleration
  • Cost-effective entry-level performance that handles basic tasks like web browsing, emails, and office work smoothly
  • Features four physical cores, providing better multitasking for light applications compared to dual-core Celeron alternatives
  • Stays relatively cool during standard operation, often only becoming slightly warm even without an internal fan

What we don't like about Intel Pentium Silver N5000

  • Integrated UHD Graphics 605 is very weak and unsuitable for modern 3D gaming or intensive graphics work
  • Slow processing speeds make it struggle with demanding software like AutoCAD, video editing, or heavy IDEs like Android Studio
  • Based on the older Atom microarchitecture, which has significantly lower per-core performance than the Intel Core (i3/i5/i7) series
  • Experiences significant slowdowns and long loading times if paired with a traditional spinning hard drive (HDD) rather than an SSD
  • Not future-proof for resource-heavy operating systems or multitasking with dozens of complex web tabs

Verdict

The Intel Pentium Silver N5000, a Gemini Lake mobile processor released in late 2017, has 4 cores and 4 threads. It has a 1.10 GHz base clock and a burst frequency up to 2.70 GHz. Built on a 14nm process, it includes 4MB of L2 cache and an integrated Intel UHD Graphics 605 GPU with 18 execution units, supporting 4K video at 60Hz. It has a low Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 6W, which allows for silent laptop designs and good battery efficiency for basic office tasks and web browsing. However, it has limited multi-tasking performance, a low maximum supported RAM capacity of 8GB, and an underpowered GPU that makes modern 3D gaming or heavy video editing difficult.

Compare Intel Pentium Silver N5000 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 N5000 and other processors

No results found