Wednesday, February 20th 2019

Intel Rolls Out the 4 GHz Pentium Gold G5620 Processor

Intel rolled out its first Pentium-branded processor with 4.00 GHz clock-speed, the Pentium Gold G5620 (retail SKU: BX80684G5620). The chip replaces the G5600 on top of the entry-level product stack. Based on the 14 nm "Coffee Lake" microarchitecture, it packs a 2-core/4-thread CPU clocked at 4.00 GHz without Turbo Boost. 256 KB of L2 cache per core and 4 MB of shared L3 cache are also offered. The integrated graphics solution is Intel's workhorse UHD Graphics 630, with 24 execution units. The dual-channel DDR4 integrated memory controller supports up to 64 GB of DDR4-2400 memory. The chip's TDP is rated at 65W. Pricing is up in the air, with retail channel shortages expected to swing the chip on both sides of the $100-mark. Availability is slated for early-March, 2019.
Source: Anandtech
Add your own comment

64 Comments on Intel Rolls Out the 4 GHz Pentium Gold G5620 Processor

#1
kastriot
Always some catch with intel cpu-s.
Posted on Reply
#2
GoldenX
We have to do something about the 200GE that offers AVX/AVX2, better SMT and a LOT better IGP.
Let's do a speed bump!
Posted on Reply
#3
notb
GoldenX said:
We have to do something about the 200GE that offers AVX/AVX2, better SMT and a LOT better IGP.
Let's do a speed bump!
This CPU is aimed at low-budget PC, NUCs and thin clients. Basically, none of the things you've mentioned matter.
What matters is: it's cheap, it's quite fast (waaaay faster than that 200GE) and it says "Intel" on the package.
Posted on Reply
#4
R0H1T
Way faster than OCed 200GE - nope!
Posted on Reply
#5
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Pentium finally reached 4 GHz...over a decade after it was promised. Better late than never, I suppose.
Posted on Reply
#6
notb
R0H1T said:
Way faster than OCed 200GE - nope!
1) Overclocking a 200GE? Seriously?
I know it can be done, but statistically is it the CPU overclocking crowd buys?
Once again: budget PCs, NUCs, thin clients.
2) How much can you OC a 200GE? Because the gap in single-threaded performance is enormous. On stock clocks that Pentium will be 40% faster.
Posted on Reply
#7
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
btarunr said:
The chip's TDP is rated at 65W.
WAT :|

notb said:
Once again: budget PCs, NUCs, thin clients.
65w isn't very attractive for that...
Posted on Reply
#9
hojnikb
notb said:
This CPU is aimed at low-budget PC, NUCs and thin clients. Basically, none of the things you've mentioned matter.
What matters is: it's cheap, it's quite fast (waaaay faster than that 200GE) and it says "Intel" on the package.
For the kind of money this pentium will sell, you can probably get 2200G or ryzen3 1200, both of which will absolutly kill this crappy ol' pentium
Posted on Reply
#10
Blueberries
It is pretty crazy that in 2 years clock speeds for this architecture have risen 500 MHz, that being said... it's still boring.

2019 is going to be a really unexciting year for PC Tech. Bring on DDR5, PCIe 4.0, and another die shrink already-- I'm falling asleep over here!
Posted on Reply
#12
Countryside
notb said:

2) How much can you OC a 200GE? .
Up to 3.8-3.9
Posted on Reply
#13
narayan
notb, reading you comments its pretty clear...
the intel cpu is not even out and you already know it's 40% faster? how did you come up with this number? is it just your opinion, which at the moment is equal to zero or are you some kind of intel's secret tester seeing the general responses?
Posted on Reply
#14
notb
FordGT90Concept said:

65w isn't very attractive for that...
I wouldn't worry about that. Intel TDP ratings don't make much sense (not just in HEDT).
AnandTech tested the G5400. TDP 58W, actual draw 25W.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13660/amd-athlon-200ge-vs-intel-pentium-gold-g5400-review/20

All Core CPUs are rated above 50W. A mid-range i5-7500 (TDP 65W) sucks around 45W in stress tests.
hojnikb said:
For the kind of money this pentium will sell, you can probably get 2200G or ryzen3 1200, both of which will absolutly kill this crappy ol' pentium
Of course, some AMD options may have better value. It doesn't matter.
In this price bracket Intel is not positioning their CPUs against AMD (like they have to in high-end gaming stuff).. They're positioning them to sell. And this will sell. A large part of target audience doesn't know AMD exists.

narayan said:
notb, reading you comments its pretty clear...
the intel cpu is not even out and you already know it's 40% faster? how did you come up with this number?
Because G5600 is 30-35% faster.

Countryside said:
Up to 3.8-3.9
I meant performance gain.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13660/amd-athlon-200ge-vs-intel-pentium-gold-g5400-review/21
They got 21%. So still behind Pentium on stock and possibly pulling more energy after OC.
And honestly, I don't think many Pentium buyers know something called overclocking exists. We can't assume they would OC a 200GE.
Posted on Reply
#15
Vayra86
notb said:
I wouldn't worry about that. Intel TDP ratings don't make much sense (not just in HEDT).
AnandTech tested the G5400. TDP 58W, actual draw 25W.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13660/amd-athlon-200ge-vs-intel-pentium-gold-g5400-review/20

All Core CPUs are rated above 50W. A mid-range i5-7500 (TDP 65W) sucks around 45W in stress tests.

Of course, some AMD options may have better value. It doesn't matter.
In this price bracket Intel is not positioning their CPUs against AMD (like they have to in high-end gaming stuff).. They're positioning them to sell. And this will sell. A large part of target audience doesn't know AMD exists.


Because G5600 is 30-35% faster.


I meant performance gain.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13660/amd-athlon-200ge-vs-intel-pentium-gold-g5400-review/21
They got 21%. So still behind Pentium on stock and possibly pulling more energy after OC.
And honestly, I don't think many Pentium buyers know something called overclocking exists. We can't assume they would OC a 200GE.
You seem to be reading into this in the best possible way for Intel, but here's what's up with those TDPs;


Bottom line, when it says 65W on the box, you could get a dud that actually gets pretty close. Now, view this in the current situation where Intel is just speed bumping their entire portfolio, and we see those speed bumps completely obliterate any perf/watt advantage Intel had over AMD while royally exceeding specced TDP under sustained turbos, do the math and you know you're not painting the most realistic picture here. These are the lowest possible quality of silicon and the variance will be high, plus we are looking at Intel that has shown to be pretty desperate as of late, using every trick in the book to gain performance - including a careful selection of review samples.
Posted on Reply
#16
Countryside
Purely for gaming yes the g5400 but its igpu is lacking badly thus you have to pair it with a gpu if you are on a tight budget the 200ge is a better choice beacus the igpu can actually do something.

Personally for me buget cpus start at ryzen 3 and corei3 coffe lakes.
Posted on Reply
#17
notb
Vayra86 said:
You seem to be reading into this in the best possible way for Intel, but here's what's up with those TDPs;

Bottom line, when it says 65W on the box, you could get a dud that actually gets pretty close. Now, view this in the current situation where Intel is just speed bumping their entire portfolio, and we see those speed bumps completely obliterate any perf/watt advantage Intel had over AMD while royally exceeding specced TDP under sustained turbos, do the math and you know you're not painting the most realistic picture here. These are the lowest possible quality of silicon and the variance will be high, plus we are looking at Intel that has shown to be pretty desperate as of late, using every trick in the book to gain performance - including a careful selection of review samples.
Of course you're right. It is probable that a poor quality chip will get close to the TDP put on the box. However, let's not forget that there's also a possibility of them going past TDP.
TDP is just a norm, not a physical limit. It's based on some quantile they've chosen.

It is important what TDP implies.
If you, as a consumer, buy a boxed i5-7500, you are supposed to provide a 65W cooler, because e.g. 99.95% of CPUs are below their TDP. But it may be that 99.5% are below 40W.
In the end, it's just another argument to buy PCs from OEM/SI and that's how majority of Pentiums arrive to their owners.
It'll be OEM's fault if they cool a 65W TDP chip with a tiny cooler made for 35W. But it doesn't mean it won't work. They may have tested each unit, they may have ordered a better batch.

For example: I'm pretty sure some coolers in Dell OptiPlex SFF can't handle the official TDP of the CPU.
I wouldn't be surprised if Dell binned the CPUs internally.
Posted on Reply
#18
Midland Dog
why not just make another G3258, with ht of course, that was its only real fault

FordGT90Concept said:
Pentium finally reached 4 GHz...over a decade after it was promised. Better late than never, I suppose.
that ship has already sailed mate, devils canyon refresh is my source
Posted on Reply
#19
vprem
Anyone who believes-in there being "Benevolence" within "Malevolence" [or vice-versa], needs to have his Head-Examined. This is because Insanity is Doing The Same Thing but Expecting A Different Outcome. Unless "Somehow But Don't Know How" works!
Posted on Reply
#20
Outback Bronze
Midland Dog said:
why not just make another G3258, with ht of course, that was its only real fault


that ship has already sailed mate, devils canyon refresh is my source
I know where your coming from mate but technically no. This has 4Ghz stock. Please quote me if I'm wrong?
Posted on Reply
#21
lynx29
As someone who uses 200GE on a daily basis alongside my 8th gen intel i3 hp 15" school laptop, I actually feel like the 200GE is pretty sugglish in all honesty. Chrome takes a couple seconds longer to load, etc etc. I find myself always going for the 8th gen Intel laptop
Posted on Reply
#22
ghazi
notb said:
I wouldn't worry about that. Intel TDP ratings don't make much sense (not just in HEDT).
AnandTech tested the G5400. TDP 58W, actual draw 25W.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13660/amd-athlon-200ge-vs-intel-pentium-gold-g5400-review/20

All Core CPUs are rated above 50W. A mid-range i5-7500 (TDP 65W) sucks around 45W in stress tests.
The problem with your reasoning is that all the other Pentium chips are 54W (or 35W for -T SKUs) and this one is 65W. That implies that this one should have substantially higher heat output than the others.

The comparison to the 200GE is somewhat asinine as this chip will cost practically double... compare to a 2200G (which might be cheaper still) and it's not so rosy for Intel anymore.
Posted on Reply
#23
ensabrenoir
Midland Dog said:
why not just make another G3258, with ht of course, that was its only real fault


that ship has already sailed mate, devils canyon refresh is my source
.....when i saw this title, I was hoping that this chip would be a quad but alas nope. Dual core in 2019..... It would have been fun to have an all out unlocked low priced quad you could push through the wall for kicks.
Posted on Reply
#24
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
R0H1T said:
Way faster than OCed 200GE - nope!
Overclocking the 200GE is not a feature of the CPU. Yeah, it is something that enthusiasts might try if they have the right motherboard, but at the same time, at any time AMD could release an update that re-locks overclocking. So its not something that you should be buying the processor expecting to do.
Posted on Reply
#25
R0H1T
It may not be a feature but I don't remember AMD ever "relocking" such chips or cards, I could be wrong though.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment