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 N6000 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£140PassMark multi-core score:2934N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.3 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1338TDP (Thermal design power):6 W

Intel Pentium Silver N6000 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 4 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.0/10

Overall score

Score
5.0/ 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 97% of models
Score components

40%

3.7

Technical score

25%

3.7

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 97% of processors
6.4

Value for money

Value for money
6.4/ 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 91% of models
Score components

70%

5.0

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

â–¼Worse than 91%
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 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 92% of models
Score components

60%

2.3

Performance

18%

5.5

Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

7.3

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 92%
3.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.7/ 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 96% of models

3.7

Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.0

Average grade

20%

8.0

Popularity

Grades by review (4)
4 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 96%
?

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~ £140
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 Silver N6000

Based on 0 · 4

Reviewers find performance solid for the class, but ports and connectivity are a common letdown.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Pentium Silver N6000

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 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 92% of models
Score components:

60%

2.3

Performance

18%

5.5

Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

7.3

Integrated graphics

3.7
Reviews score
3.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.4/ 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 91% of models
Score components:

70%

5.0

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

6.4
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1338
This processor uses the FCBGA1338 CPU socket, which is older than that of 91.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% 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, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, F16C, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 51.6% 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
3.3 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.3 GHz which is lower than that of 87.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.1 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.1 GHz which is lower than that of 91.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
2,934
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 2,934 in PassMark, which is lower than 86.9% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 19.5% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 10 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 10 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 51.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% 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
1.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1.5 MB which is smaller than that of 63.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.5% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4X
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4X, which is newer than that of 61.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,933 MHz, which is lower than that of 50.3% of processors and equal to 5.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 92.2% of processors and equal to 6.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 32EU
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 32EU integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 60.4% of processors and equal to that in 0.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
32
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 32 GPU execution units, which is more than 70.1% of processors and equal to 10.1% 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), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 97.2% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
6 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 6 W which is lower than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
6 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 6 W which is lower than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
12 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 12 W which is lower than that of 94.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% 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
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Pentium Silver N6000 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 86.7% lower base power
    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
  • 64% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (63.8 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    63.8 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 81.3% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (12 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    12 W vs 64 W
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    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 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
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Jasper Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Jasper Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 2 wider front-end design
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    6 vs 4
  • 2 wider front-end design
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    6 vs 4
  • 64% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (63.8 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    63.8 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Jasper Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Jasper Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 10 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 10 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 86.7% lower base power
    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
  • 81.3% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (12 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    12 W vs 64 W
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    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 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
  • 44.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.7/ 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 96% of models

    3.7

    Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    4 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.
    3.7 vs 6.7
  • 74.4% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,934 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,934 vs 11,469
  • 79.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,083 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,083 vs 5,209
  • 47% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,357 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,357 vs 2,558
  • 69.4% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (469 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    469 vs 1,535
  • 25% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 76.6% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (657 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    657 vs 2,804.5
  • 48.4% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (253 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    253 vs 490
  • 44.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.7/ 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 96% of models

    3.7

    Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    4 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.
    3.7 vs 6.7
  • 13.1% worse value for money
    Intel Pentium Silver N6000 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.44 vs 7.3).
    6.44 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, MBEC 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 (FCBGA1338 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1338 vs FP5
  • 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, BMI1, BMI2 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, BMI1, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 74.4% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,934 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,934 vs 11,469
  • 79.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,083 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,083 vs 5,209
  • 47% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,357 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,357 vs 2,558
  • 69.4% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (469 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    469 vs 1,535
  • 25% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 76.6% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (657 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    657 vs 2,804.5
  • 48.4% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (253 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    253 vs 490
  • 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
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 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.
  • 17 lower clock multiplier
    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
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 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
  • 50% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • 75% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • 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

6.0
TechTablets
≈ estimated
11/04/2022
Hands-on review · mini PC performance, thermals and gaming tests
Verdict
Intel Pentium Silver N6000 is fine for light computing, but thermal throttling and weak gaming hold it back.
8.0
Brue Computing
≈ estimated
26/11/2021
Hands-on review · performance, ports, screen and gaming tests
Verdict
Intel Pentium Silver N6000 is very good value for thin, portable use, but its 4GB RAM limits multitasking and heavier demands.
4.0
Lobban Review
≈ estimated
29/05/2023
Hands-on review · week of use, screen, keyboard and ports
Verdict
Intel Pentium Silver N6000 offers adequate performance, but the weak screen and questionable value make it hard to recommend.
6.0
Zantech Tutorial
≈ estimated
07/03/2022
Unboxing · hardware, ports and design walkthrough
Verdict
Intel Pentium Silver N6000 is a judgment call that depends on your needs, capacity and budget; RAM cannot be upgraded beyond 8GB.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Pentium Silver N6000

  • Excellent energy efficiency with a low 6W TDP, leading to long battery life (up to 12+ hours in some laptops)
  • Affordable entry-level pricing, making it a good choice for budget-conscious students and basic office work
  • Silent operation in many devices due to its suitability for passive (fanless) cooling designs
  • Reliable performance for light day-to-day tasks such as web browsing, streaming 1440p/4K video, and word processing
  • Integrates modern features like Wi-Fi 6 support and 4 CPU cores for better multitasking than older Celeron models

What customers don't like about Intel Pentium Silver N6000

  • Significant performance throttling under sustained load due to low power limits and thermal constraints
  • Poor gaming performance; integrated UHD graphics struggle with even basic 3D games from the last decade
  • Noticeable slowdowns and 'choking' when attempting heavy multitasking or opening too many browser tabs
  • Not suitable for demanding applications like professional video editing, CAD, or complex programming
  • Often paired with slow eMMC storage and limited, non-upgradeable RAM (4GB) in budget laptop models

Verdict

The Intel Pentium Silver N6000 is a budget-friendly quad-core processor from the Jasper Lake family, built on a 10nm process with a base frequency of 1.1 GHz and a burst clock speed reaching 3.3 GHz. It features 4 MB of L3 cache, an integrated Intel UHD Graphics GPU with 32 execution units (clocked up to 850 MHz), and support for up to 16 GB of DDR4/LPDDR4x-2933 RAM. Main pros include a highly efficient 6W TDP that enables thin, fanless designs, built-in support for Wi-Fi 6, and reliable performance for everyday tasks like web browsing, office applications, and 4K media playback. However, it lacks Hyper-Threading, faces significant performance limitations in demanding workloads like gaming or video editing, and is often paired with non-upgradeable memory in many laptop configurations.

Compare Intel Pentium Silver N6000 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 N6000 and other processors

No results found