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 N6005 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£55PassMark benchmark result:5242N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.3 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1338TDP (Thermal design power):10 W

Intel Pentium Silver N6005 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.7

Overall score

Score
3.7/ 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 94% of models
Score components

90%

3.7

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 94% of processors
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 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 93% of models
Score components

60%

2.5

Performance

18%

5.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 93% 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~ £55

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 N6005

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 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 93% of models
Score components:

60%

2.5

Performance

18%

5.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated Graphics

3.7
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 N6005 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
5.6/ 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 90% of models
Score components:

60%

3.7

Overall score

40%

10

Price

5.6
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
FCBGA1338
CPU socket
FCBGA1338
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1338 CPU socket, which is older than that of 91.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% 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
3.3 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.3 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.3 GHz which is lower than that of 86.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.5% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.0 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.0 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.0 GHz which is lower than that of 73.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Semiconductor size
10 nm
â–² Better than 52% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 52.4% of processors and equal to that of 19.1% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 10 nm
Foundry
Intel 10 nm
â–² Better than 52% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 10 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 52.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
L3 cache
4 MB
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 70.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.6% of processors.
L2 cache
1.5 MB
L2 cache
1.5 MB
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1.5 MB which is smaller than that of 62.2% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
L1 cache
256 KB
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 59.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4X
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4X
â–² Better than 63% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4X, which is newer than that of 63.4% of processors and equal to that of 3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 48% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,933 MHz, which is higher than that of 46.6% 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
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 91.7% of processors and equal to 6.4% 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 32 EUs
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 32EU
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 32EU
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 32EU integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 62% of processors and equal to that in 0.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
32
Integrated GPU execution units
32
â–² Better than 71% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 32 GPU execution units, which is more than 70.9% of processors and equal to 9.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
450 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
450 MHz
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 450 MHz which is higher than that of 77.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 63.1% of processors and equal to 10.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
10 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
10 W
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 10 W which is lower than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
10 W
Base power (PL1)
10 W
★ Better than 94% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 10 W which is lower than that of 94.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
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
no
Configurable TDP
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Pentium Silver N6005 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 77.8% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • 64% smaller die size
    Die size
    63.8 mm²
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
  • 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
  • 77.8% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, SMAP, SMEP
    â–² Better than 72% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Jasper Lake
    â–² Better than 54% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Jasper Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Jasper Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR4X
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 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
  • 4.55x cheaper
    Intel Pentium Silver N6005 is cheaper than the average processor (£55 vs £250).
    £55 vs £250
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, SMAP, SMEP
    â–² Better than 72% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 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
  • 64% smaller die size
    Die size
    63.8 mm²
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
    Microarchitecture codename
    Jasper Lake
    â–² Better than 54% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Jasper Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Jasper Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 10 nm
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    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
  • 16.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    10 nm
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (10 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    10 nm vs 12 nm
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR4X
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 77.8% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • 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
  • 77.8% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • 63% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    544
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (544 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    544 vs 1,471
  • 70.6% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,421
    â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,421 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,421 vs 4,829
  • 23.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.3 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.3 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.3 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 71.5% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    796
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (796 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    796 vs 2,791
  • 29.5% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,763
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,763 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,763 vs 2,500
  • 50.4% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    5,242
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,242 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,242 vs 10,572.5
  • 42.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    279
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (279 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    279 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
  • 17.2% worse value for money
    Intel Pentium Silver N6005 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.6 vs 6.6).
    5.6 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, SHA
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, 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, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1338
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1338 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1338 vs FP4
  • 63% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    544
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (544 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    544 vs 1,471
  • 70.6% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,421
    â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,421 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,421 vs 4,829
  • 23.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.3 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.3 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.3 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 71.5% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    796
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (796 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    796 vs 2,791
  • 29.5% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,763
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,763 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,763 vs 2,500
  • 50.4% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    5,242
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,242 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,242 vs 10,572.5
  • 42.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    279
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (279 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    279 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
  • 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.
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 2.0 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 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
  • No Turbo Boost
    Turbo Boost version
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor does not support Turbo Boost, the average processor does. 88.6% of processors support Turbo Boost.
  • 8 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    20
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    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
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 40% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1.5 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 50% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    4 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    4 MB vs 8 MB
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    256 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    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
  • 24% less L2 per core
    L2 per core
    0.38 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.4 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.38 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    8
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    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
    Maximum memory capacity
    16 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    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
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    AV1 (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

O
openbenchmarking.org
12/08/2022
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium Silver N6005 Benchmarks, Linux Performance
B
browser.geekbench.com
15/01/2021
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium Silver N6005 Benchmarks - Geekbench
C
cpubenchmark.net
20/10/2021
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium Silver N6005 @ 2.00GHz - CPU Benchmarks
T
teampandory.com
27/12/2024
Summary of the review
Intel NUC 11 N6005 Review: The Tiny Desktop That Could ...
N
notebookcheck.biz
19/03/2023
Summary of the review
Intel NUC 11 Essential Kit (Atlas Canyon) Review: Pentium Silver N6005 and Celeron N4505
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Pentium Silver N6005 | LaptopMedia English
(Translated)Show original
P
profesionalreview.com
12/03/2023
Summary of the review
Intel NUC 11 Essential Review (Full Analysis)
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Pentium Silver N6005

  • Excellent for basic daily tasks like web browsing, 4K video streaming, and office work.
  • Very low power consumption (10W TDP), making it highly energy-efficient.
  • Quiet operation in most mini PC configurations, especially during idle or light use.
  • Decent performance for lightweight retro game emulation (up to PS2 in some cases).
  • Improved single-thread performance compared to previous Gemini Lake generations.
  • Supports dual-channel memory, which provides a performance edge over single-channel-only budget chips.

What we don't like about Intel Pentium Silver N6005

  • Not suitable for modern 3D gaming or intensive creative work like video editing.
  • Newer processors (like the Intel N100) offer significantly better performance for a similar or lower price.
  • Can struggle with multitasking or having too many browser tabs and applications open simultaneously.
  • Some users report the fan can become audible or annoying under sustained heavy loads in active-cooled units.
  • Performance is highly dependent on the specific device's cooling solution and power limits (PL1/PL2).
  • Limited future-proofing for more demanding upcoming operating systems or software.

Verdict

The Intel Pentium Silver N6005 is a budget-friendly, quad-core processor based on the 10nm 'Jasper Lake' architecture, featuring a 2.0 GHz base frequency, 3.3 GHz burst frequency, and 4 MB of L3 cache. With a low 10W TDP, it is designed for energy-efficient mini PCs and laptops, offering integrated UHD Graphics with 32 execution units and support for up to 16 GB of DDR4/LPDDR4x-2933 RAM. Its main pros include high efficiency for 4K media playback, quiet operation in fanless designs, and solid performance for light productivity and web browsing. However, its primary cons are the lack of Hyper-Threading, limited multi-core performance for demanding professional software, and older integrated tech compared to newer 'Alder Lake-N' successors.

Compare Intel Pentium Silver N6005 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 N6005 and other processors

No results found