Intel Core i7-4600M vs Intel Pentium 6805 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a surprisingly one-sided picture. Across every recorded Cinebench test, the Intel Pentium 6805 outperforms the Intel Core i7-4600M, and the margins are remarkably consistent. The Pentium 6805 wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with no victories for the older Core i7.

The largest relative advantage appears in Cinebench R20 single-core testing, where the Pentium 6805 scores 225 against 161 for the Core i7-4600M, a 39.8% lead. This pattern repeats across the multi-core tests as well. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Pentium 6805 posts 383 points versus 275, a 39.3% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1596 versus 1147, a 39.1% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers 3801 versus 2732, again 39.1%. Finally, Cinebench R23 single-core sees the Pentium at 536 versus 385, a 39.2% difference.

The consistency of these deltas, all hovering near 39%, suggests a fundamental architectural efficiency advantage rather than a test-specific quirk. The Pentium 6805's Ice Lake architecture with its 10 nm process appears to extract significantly more work per clock than the Haswell-based Core i7-4600M, despite the latter having a much higher base clock.

Looking at the broader database context, the Pentium 6805 holds an average benchmark score of 1099, placing it in the 31st percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-3450S with an identical average score of 1099 (0% delta) and the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 at 1098 (0.1% behind). The Core i7-4600M, meanwhile, averages 1093, sitting in the 30th percentile. Its closest competitor is the Intel Core i7-4610M at 1094 (0.1% ahead), with the Intel Core i7-10510Y at 1092 (0.1% behind). The delta between these two processors in aggregate performance is small, roughly 0.5%, but the Cinebench suite reveals a clear qualitative difference.

A curious note: the Core i7-4600M has a Geekbench multi-core score of 1930 and a single-core score of 1018, but the Pentium 6805 has no recorded Geekbench entries. This omission in the data means the multi-core comparison relies entirely on Cinebench results, which consistently favor the Pentium.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Pentium 6805 dominates in single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 225 versus 161 for the Core i7-4600M, a 39.8% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it posts 536 versus 385, a 39.2% advantage.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core workloads?

A: The Pentium 6805 wins every multi-core test. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 383 versus 275 (39.3% ahead), Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1596 versus 1147 (39.1% ahead), and Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 3801 versus 2732 (39.1% ahead).

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Pentium 6805 has an average benchmark score of 1099, while the Core i7-4600M averages 1093. This places them in the 31st and 30th percentiles of all CPUs, respectively.

Q: Are there any benchmark categories where the Core i7-4600M wins?

A: According to the recorded data, no. The head-to-head comparison lists zero wins for the Core i7-4600M across all five Cinebench tests. The Core i7 does have additional Geekbench results, but no corresponding Pentium 6805 scores exist for direct comparison.

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The Core i7-4600M has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The Pentium 6805 has a base clock of 1.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. Despite the Core i7's higher clocks, the Pentium still wins all benchmarks.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The Pentium 6805 is built on a 10 nm process, while the Core i7-4600M uses a 22 nm process. The Pentium's die size is 123 mm² versus 131 mm² for the Core i7, and the Core i7 has 960 million transistors.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner: the Intel Pentium 6805. Across every comparable benchmark, it outperforms the Intel Core i7-4600M by roughly 39%. This is not a marginal victory but a systematic one, suggesting that the architectural improvements in Ice Lake, despite the lower clock speeds, deliver substantially more performance per cycle.

The Core i7-4600M's higher base and boost clocks (2.90 GHz and 3.60 GHz versus 1.10 GHz and 3.00 GHz) cannot compensate for the Pentium's newer design. The 10 nm process node and Sunny Cove cores of the Pentium 6805 appear to offer a significant IPC advantage over the older Haswell architecture.

For anyone choosing between these two mobile processors based strictly on benchmark performance, the Pentium 6805 is the obvious pick. The Core i7-4600M offers no performance wins in the recorded tests. Its only potential advantages lie in areas not covered by the benchmark data, such as its higher transistor count or different integrated graphics solution.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Pentium 6805 has a base clock of 1.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz, while the Core i7-4600M runs at 2.90 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. The Pentium's TDP is 15 watts, compared to 37 watts for the Core i7, making the Pentium far more power-efficient.

The sockets differ: the Pentium uses Intel BGA 1526, while the Core i7 uses Intel Socket G3. The Pentium supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth; the Core i7 supports DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. The integrated graphics also differ: the Pentium has UHD Graphics (32EU), while the Core i7 has Intel HD 4600.

The Core i7-4600M was released on 2013-08-31 with a launch MSRP of $346. The Pentium 6805 was released on 2020-09-30 with a launch MSRP of $161. Both are end-of-life products with locked multipliers. The Core i7's part number is SR1H7, and the Pentium's is SRK0U.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The Pentium 6805 uses Ice Lake architecture with the Ice Lake-Y codename, built on a 10 nm process. Its generation is listed as Pentium (Sunny Cove-Y). The Core i7-4600M uses Haswell architecture with the Haswell codename, built on a 22 nm process, and its generation is Core i7 (Haswell).

The cache layouts differ slightly. The Pentium has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, while the Core i7 has 64 KB per core. Both have 256 KB of L2 cache per core and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i7 has 960 million transistors on a 131 mm² die; the Pentium's transistor count is not recorded, but its die size is 123 mm².

The memory architecture reflects the generational gap. The Pentium's DDR4 support with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth is double the Core i7's DDR3 bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. Both support PCIe Gen 3, though the Core i7 specifies 16 lanes for the CPU only. Neither supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The Pentium 6805 wins all recorded benchmark categories. In single-core workloads, it leads by 39.8% in Cinebench R20 and 39.2% in Cinebench R23. In multi-core workloads, it leads by 39.3% in Cinebench R15, 39.1% in Cinebench R20, and 39.1% in Cinebench R23. The consistency of these margins across different Cinebench versions indicates that the Pentium's advantage is robust and not tied to a specific workload type.

The Core i7-4600M has no recorded wins. Its higher clock speeds and larger transistor count do not translate into benchmark victories. The data suggests that for any CPU-bound task measured by Cinebench, the Pentium is the superior choice.

However, the Core i7-4600M does have Geekbench scores in the database (1930 multi-core, 1018 single-core) that have no direct Pentium equivalent. Without comparable data, those results cannot be used to declare a win for either side. The only conclusion supported by the recorded numbers is that the Pentium 6805 dominates the shared test suite.

The Pentium's lower TDP of 15 watts versus 37 watts also suggests it would be better suited for thermally constrained environments, although the database does not directly measure power efficiency in benchmark scores. Its DDR4 memory support and higher memory bandwidth could benefit memory-intensive applications, though again, no specific benchmark in the data isolates this variable.