The Core i5-6500T is at least 2x faster gaming CPU than the Pentium G640, however, it's the same value for money, as it's $35.37 more expensive!
Advantages of the Core i5-6500T
- At least 2x faster CPU for gaming
- Consumes up to 46% less energy – 35 vs 65 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously – 4 vs 2 threads
Advantages of the Pentium G640
- Up to 59% cheaper – $24.08 vs $59.45
Core i5-6500T vs Pentium G640 for Gaming
The CPU's performance in selected game and settings
Core i5-6500T
Jul 2nd, 2015
Average FPS
179
100%
Min 1% FPS
119
100%
Price, €
€59.45
40%
Value, €/FPS
€0.33/FPS
42%
Pentium G640
Jun 3rd, 2012
Average FPS
167
93%
Min 1% FPS
112
94%
Price, €
€24.08
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.14/FPS
100%
Core i5-6500T vs Pentium G640 in My Games
The FPS you'll get in saved games
The FPS you'll get in saved games
Add a Game
Select Settings
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i5-6500T vs Pentium G640 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i5-6500T vs Pentium G640 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i5-6500T
Jul 2nd, 2015
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
6 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.5 GHz
89%
Turbo Frequency
3.1 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2133 MHz
100%
Pentium G640
Jun 3rd, 2012
Cores
2-core
50%
L3 Cache
3 MB
50%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of all specifications
Core i5-6500T | SpecificationsComparison of all specifications | Pentium G640 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Jul 2nd, 2015 | Release Date | Jun 3rd, 2012 |
| Not Available | MSRP | Not Available |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
| Skylake | Codename | Sandy Bridge |
35 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Performance | ||
4 | Cores | 2 |
4 | Threads | 2 |
| 2.5 GHz | Base Frequency | 2.8 GHz |
| 3.1 GHz | Turbo Frequency | Non-Turbo |
6 MB | L3 Cache | 3 MB |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 @ 2133 MHz, DDR4 @ 2133 MHz | RAM | DDR3 |
| HD Graphics 530 | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD (Sandy Bridge) |
| No | Overclockable | No |
