Intel Pentium G4620 And G4560 Review: Now With Hyper-Threading

Office & Productivity Applications

Blender 2.78b

The multi-threaded Blender test scales well when you back it with multiple physical cores. But it also responds well to higher frequencies and Hyper-Threading.

Notice the pronounced jump in render times when we switch to Pentium processors? Blender uses AVX instructions on compatible CPUs, and the Pentium's lack of AVX support shows through. They're instead forced to utilize the SSE instruction set.

Some rendering and encode/decode programs are optimized for AVX2 extensions. And while most software can fall back to older instructions, performance is typically lost in the process.

Cinebench R15

Maxon's Cinebench single-core benchmark yields predictable results, given what we know about each architecture. The Core i5-7400 uses its top 3.5 GHz Turbo Boost bin to provide a slight advantage over the 3.5 GHz Pentium G4560. Intel's Haswell-based Pentium G3258 employs a lower 3.2 GHz frequency, so it naturally lands below the G4560. The Athlon suffers from an architecturally-imposed IPC deficit and falls to the bottom of our test pool.

The multi-core test scales well. Intel's Pentium G4560 and G4620 enjoy a healthy lead over the G3258 due to their higher frequencies and Hyper-Threading support. But this test prefers the Core i3's more aggressive clock rates and increased cache, along with the Core i5's additional physical cores.

Although Cinebench's OpenGL workload is mostly a test of graphics performance, our Radeon RX 470 behaves differently depending on the host processor it's paired with.


Our HandBrake workload involves converting a 4.19GB movie file into an MP4, so it's a long and repeatable threaded benchmark. Like our Blender results, we notice a big drop in performance as we transition to the AVX-deprived Pentium series. Hyper-Threading helps the benchmark along compared to Intel's older Pentium G3258, but the company's Core i3s definitely enjoy an advantage due to their ISA enhancements.


Our suite favors future-looking threaded applications, but the nuances of Intel's Turbo Boost technology are most perceptible in lightly-threaded tests. We use LAME to characterize single-threaded performance in a simple .WAV to .MP3 conversion.

Although we're accustomed to seeing the highest available Turbo Boost frequencies in this metric, Intel's Core i5-7500 only hit 3.7 GHz (instead of its 3.8 GHz ceiling), allowing the 3.7 GHz Pentium G4620 to keep pace. We also noticed the Core i5-7600K behaving similarly; it jumped to 4.2 GHz briefly, but fell to 4.1 GHz for the remainder of our test.

7-Zip 16.02

7-Zip utilizes all available execution resources, rewarding processors with more cores and higher clock rates. The Pentium G4560 lags behind its more powerful relative by a mere 4%.

Notably, the Pentium G4560 beats the G3258 by 40%, which is a result of both its faster clock rate and the additional logical cores. 

Adobe After Effects CC

After Effects is one of the few Adobe applications that launches several concurrent threads to spread work across multiple cores. As a result, physical cores are favored, though Hyper-Threading does facilitate greater utilization of the dual-core models. Unsurprisingly, there is a slim margin between the Pentium G4560 and G4620.

Adobe Illustrator CC (64-bit)

A responsive storage subsystem and high clock rates come into play during the Illustrator workload.

Adobe InDesign CC (64-bit)

AMD's Athlon X4 750K stands out due to its extremely low performance, while the Core i5-7400 falls between Intel's Pentium G4620 and G4560.

Adobe Photoshop CC (64-bit)

The Photoshop Light test performs simple tasks like changing the color balance and auto-leveling, while the Heavy sequence employs more stressful manipulations. The CPU-centric benchmarks perform to our expectations, and the results of both tests align similarly.

Advanced Photo Editing & 4K Video Editing

Photo and video editing is a universal task that benefits greatly from OpenCL acceleration. The conventional test relies on host processing, while the accelerated results quantify the benefit of heterogeneous computing with a Radeon RX 470.

There's a one-second difference between the Pentium G4620 and G4560 in our photo manipulation workload, which grows to seven seconds under a more demanding 4K video editing benchmark. OpenCL acceleration has a potentially tremendous impact on performance, in this case whittling the difference between Pentiums down to an imperceptible level.

The Athlon X4 750K is unbearably slow on its own as we edit 4K video. Fold in the power of heterogeneous compute, though, and it becomes competitive.

Microsoft Excel 2016 - Word, Excel, & PowerPoint

Mundane Excel tasks don't require a lot of computational horsepower, so our test pool offers generally acceptable performance across the board.

Power & Thermals

Unfortunately, BCLK-based overclocking is mostly fruitless. Intel encouraged motherboard vendors to disable the feature, even via third-party clock generators, with recent BIOS updates.

We didn't see any thermal bottlenecks with our Corsair H100 v2 cooler and these mainstream CPUs, so there's frankly not much to say about heat. We did record temperatures with AIDA, but a changing ambient environment likely exaggerates any reported delta between our test runs.

The Pentium G4620 averaged just 29W during the stress test, and the G4560 dipped to 24W. In comparison, the Core i5-7600K averaged 46W, and the Core i3-7350K consumed 29W. The low-power Pentiums perform fine with Intel's stock air cooler, helping you save money for other components. 

The number of configurations we tested was so large that our custom graphics charts couldn't accommodate another sample and remain readable, so we dialed in a relatively simple 4.3 GHz overclock on the aging Athlon X4 750K at 1.43V rather than bore you with stock results. The tuned settings push AMD's power consumption to over 100W, which has an understandably detrimental effect on performance per watt comparisons.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • cknobman
    Is it just me or are all the gaming benchmarks missing?
  • lhsbrandon
    Why do you use an old Piledriver based Athlon? I would think the newer models would be a little more competitive.
  • Sam Bittermann
    Why do you use an old Piledriver based Athlon? I would think the newer models would be a little more competitive.

    Because we know what the outcome would be, which is the same. Slowest of the bunch overall.
  • Onus
    I would like to have seen the G3258 overclocked to 4.0GHz (even bad silicon should reach that; I got 4.2GHz with a better sample). After all, a lot of people who bought that chip specifically intended to overclock it, which they could do even on H81 boards. That's an 800MHz bump over stock, which should be substantial. We'll still see where lack of hyperthreading hurts, but we'll get a better picture of what this chip can do.
  • TJ Hooker
    ^agree, especially given that they OCed the Athlon, OCing the G3258 would have made sense.

    I also would have preferred an i3-6100 rather than a 6320 in the results, given that the 6100 is the closest in specs to the new Pentiums, making it the natural choice for comparing Pentiums w/ HT to an i3. Also, the 6100 was the go-to budget gaming CPU recommendation since Skylake came out (don't think I've ever seen anyone recommend a 6320), a title which the G4560 is poised to steal. Although obviously the 6100 and 6320 perform pretty similarly, so it's not a huge deal.
  • Walter_35
    This is exactly what I was hoping for. Looks like for budget gaming, the 4560 is good enough and allows for a better GPU in the same budget. But for more professional applications, you still might want to make the jump to an i3 to get those AVX(2) instructions and in many cases this step up could be payed for by skipping the dGPU.
  • TechyInAZ
    Anonymous said:
    Is it just me or are all the gaming benchmarks missing?

    Your probably on the wrong picture, use the arrow buttons to show the actual FPS benchmarks.
  • anbello262
    "The 54W Pentium G4650 appears to offer better value with its 3.5 GHz base clock rate and $64 price tag."
    I think that should read "The 54W Pentium G4560"
  • PaulAlcorn
    Anonymous said:
    "The 54W Pentium G4650 appears to offer better value with its 3.5 GHz base clock rate and $64 price tag."
    I think that should read "The 54W Pentium G4560"

    Good catch, fixed!
  • warmon6
    Anonymous said:
    Why do you use an old Piledriver based Athlon? I would think the newer models would be a little more competitive.

    As an owner of the A10-7850k apu that has over (Equal to the Athlon X4 860k) that have the steamroller cores, the difference is not that big at the same clock speeds.

    and base on anandtech review of the Athlon x4 845 (based on the Excavator core) when all generations of athlon bulldozer are benched marked together, the story doesn't change much there either.
  • OcelotRex
    Although we did notice a performance hit in workloads optimized for AVX extensions, you can use an OpenCL-compatible GPU to augment performance in applications written with heterogeneous computing in mind.

    Can anyone provide some background on AVX specifically how it would relate to transcoding? I am looking at the G4560 for a Windows 10 Plex server so would this even be an issue?
  • Math Geek
    liking the 4560 as a heck of a budget choice. can't wait to see what Ryzen brings to the picture. if the prices of the higher end Ryzen they released are any indicator, we may see some great performance at some very low prices.

    but it's hard to deny the price/performance of a $65 4560 at this point in time!!
  • Shumok
    The G4560 is absolutely the best budget choice for now. Much more attractive than G3258 or 4 core athlons. Alternatively, I might consider Bristol Ridge on AM4, but not sure if it will be released soon for do it yourself builds. Either would be a great upgrade to my athlon x2 250 and would leave me room for a nice future cpu upgrade.
  • Bluescreendeath
    The author of this article seems to be an amateur.
    1) What type of silly review would only test a G3258 at STOCK speed? Who the hell buys a G3258 to run it at stock speed? The entire point of getting a G3258 is for overclocking - it is the overclockable pentium, and overclocks well even on cheap $30 H81 motherboards. Many, if not most people can hit at least 4.0GHz on a cheap motherboard with the STOCK cooler.
    2) And no, the G3258 does not lag behind because of its "older architecture" like the author claims. The Haswell architechture in the G3258 has nearly the same IPC and same performance clock per clock as the G4560. What causes it to lag behind is the lack of hyper threading and slower stock speed - it has little to do with architechture improvements. Overclock the G3258 to 4GHz with the stock cooler and then see how well it performs against the G4560.
  • Valantar
    An interesting review, but I'm baffled by your recommendation of a H270 or B250 motherboard for this (while at the same time arguing for keeping costs down). This chip is a match made in heaven for H110 boards (with BIOS updates for support, naturally). B250 makes some sense, but H270? Not in the slightest. You can get a H110 motherboard for ~$40. That's a perfect match for a $65 CPU.
  • DaDude1
    I got a 3258 and run it at stock speed, because it was the cheapest of them all (at microcenter) and I can't overclock with my Windows 2012 Server build. I'm seriously looking at the 4560 as a replacement, mainly because I can have 32GB DDR4 (vs 16GB DDR3) on a MITX motherboard in my small server (Node 304, 5x4TB plus 120GB SSD for boot and 1TB enterprise SSD for VM's).
    G4560-possibly the best budget CPU ever-making life real hard for AMD.

    On a side note-the 7400 performance in handbrake seems out of proportion
    compared to the 7500 in every other bench........
  • CaptainTom
    Too little, too late.

    Don't get me wrong these are nice, but they should have existed 2 years ago. Now they will have to compete with discounted piledriver/excavator chips that will destroy them, or even worse if AMD releases a 2c/4t processor.

    AMD is already about to launch i5 equivalents for $130. Imagine what they could do at the $75 mark - probably an i3 killer that uses 30w...
  • TJ Hooker
    Anonymous said:
    Don't get me wrong these are nice, but they should have existed 2 years ago. Now they will have to compete with discounted piledriver/excavator chips that will destroy them, or even worse if AMD releases a 2c/4t processor.

    These Pentiums match or beat existing FX CPUs (piledriver) in most games and other lightly threaded workloads. Same thing goes for Athlon X4s (excavator). So exactly which piledriver/excavator chips are going to be doing said "destroying"?
  • littleleo
    Just as you have die hard AMD fans that will flock to the new AMD chips with abandon. There are a good number of Intel only fans to that will embrace these new Pentiums no mater what the Zen models offer.