The Pentium G4560 is alive and well, says Intel

Over the past couple days, a number of unsubstantiated rumors have arisen regarding the future of Intel's budget CPU darling, the $65 Pentium G4560. This two-core, four-thread chip has been a staple of our Budget Box of late thanks to its strong bang-for-the-buck. As those rumors would have it, Intel is "creating an artificial shortage" to raise prices of the G4560 at retail. Another site even reported that Intel plans to "effectively kill" the chip.

While those theories are tantalizingly scandalous, they seem to be news to Intel. I brought those rumors to the company's attention this morning, and I received the following response:

We continue to offer [the Pentium G4560]. What you have observed on websites are possibly part of a normal demand fluctuation.

Seems pretty open-and-shut to me.

Although Intel didn't say as much in its statement, the most likely cause of rising G4560 prices could be that crypto miners are buying up affordable CPUs to serve as the host chips for their mining rigs. The cryptocurrency craze has driven up the price of affordable graphics cards of late, and when any CPU will do to power mining rigs, it's not hard to imagine that the G4560 is a popular choice for that role. 

The G4560 is certainly selling for more than its tray price online where it's in stock. B&H Photo Video has the chip for $78.89, and Amazon sellers seem to be moving the part for about $80. $20 or so isn't nothing in a budget build, but it's certainly not as back-breaking as a $710 Radeon RX 580.

It seems precarious to leap from those apparently demand-driven figures to any conclusions about the part's future considering that retailers have final say over G4560 prices. I should also note that even if the G4560 is hard to get, it's not the end of the world. Other Kaby Lake Pentium CPUs, like the G4600, seem available in abundance for slightly more than Intel's $82 recommended price.

In any case, serious allegations like this one demand serious proof to back them up, and it seems nobody else bothered to ask Intel what was up before going off half-cocked. Make sure your news is properly sourced and passes the smell test, folks.

Comments closed
    • Zizy
    • 2 years ago

    First part of the statement didn’t do much to refute the rumor. Continuing to offer the chip says nothing about changing allocation which is what the rumor was about in the first place. Intel could continue selling Pentium with whatever dies are really defective, for the same tray price. Yet also decided to stop crippling as many good i3 dies to make the more popular cheaper chip. This would naturally lead to shortages and increasing prices in stores, pushing people to i3 like rumor said.
    But he is also claiming “demand fluctuations” as well, implying (though not directly stating) that supply side is unchanged, debunking the rumor(s). Plus rumor maker has nothing to lose and a lot to gain by fake news, Intel doesn’t – even acknowledging the rumor as true wouldn’t change all that much for them tbfh.
    I guess there is no reason to keep believing the rumor.

    Crypto mining could be a cause just indirectly. In the last round, Semprons were used as long as stores had any. I am not following this bubble but would expect the cheapest AMD and Intel junk is put in the mining boxes again.
    But with crazy GPU prices, cheaper CPU could be used to push the gaming rig back in the budget lines, increasing demand for the Pentium instead of getting i5 (nobody sane should even consider thinking about i3).

    • ronch
    • 2 years ago

    I understand this CPU would do quite well in an office environment where single thread performance is king and employees don’t run League of Legends in the background, but I think one would do well to consider alternatives that may be priced just a tiny bit higher but should offer much better overall performance.

    [url=https://m.newegg.com/products/N82E16819117743<]G4560[/url<] vs. [url=https://m.newegg.com/products/N82E16819113284<]FX-8350[/url<] Yes I know I sound like a snake oil salesman with my recommendation of the FX-8350 and it is a stegosaurus rex but you have to admit $115 for an 8-core (ok, 8-thread) CPU (with coupon code) is not too shabby next to a dual core that costs $108.

      • raddude9
      • 2 years ago
        • ronch
        • 2 years ago

        Sorry dude, the prices are just too close. The Pentium should really be priced around $70. At $108 it begins to bump up against other options.

          • DPete27
          • 2 years ago

          [url=https://ark.intel.com/products/97143/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G4560-3M-Cache-3_50-GHz<]Intel certainly agrees with you[/url<] since they set [b<]the MSRP of the G4560 at $65.[/b<] I'm not sure if they're to blame for the price hike. As this article says the G4600 and G4620 are available on newegg for less than the G4560. Nobody's going to buy a slower chip for more money.

            • ronch
            • 2 years ago

            Intel may agree with me but none of us are buying directly from them so, yeah..

      • sonofsanta
      • 2 years ago

      Office machines spend most of their time at idle (even when they’re being used they’re not being [i<]pushed[/i<]), so you can pretty easily quantify the cost of older architectures versus more efficient new chips. A Pentium 4560 system [url=http://wccftech.com/intel-pentium-g4560-ultimate-budget-cpu-65-usd/<]idles at around 34W[/url<]. An FX-8350 system idles at [url=http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/6<]more than double that, 74W[/url<]. (I'll be using GBP prices from here on out, because I just ran these figures for work, comparing new 4560 machines to refurb Ivy Bridge i5s.) On for 10 hours a day (8am-6pm), 5 days a week, a Pentium machine costs 80p of electricity a month, the FX-8350 £1.74. Multiply that by 200 devices, and it's £348 a month compared to £160. Over a year it's a difference of £2,200. Over the likely five year lifespan of a purchase of 200 machines, it adds up to [b<]£11,299 more electricity[/b<] running the FX-8350 than the Pentium G4560. So it might only cost ~£1200 more to buy the chips, but it costs ten times that to run them. And you'll never use the extra multi-thread power in running office applications anyway--especially not when the Pentium now offers 4 threads to boot.

        • ronch
        • 2 years ago

        Yeah I understand the power part and I myself wouldn’t recommend the FX for big deployments. I’m just saying the Pentium gets awfully close to the 8350, which is overall more powerful but yeah it’s also more thirsty.

      • rudimentary_lathe
      • 2 years ago

      I see no good reason for anyone to buy a new FX-8350 today. Sure it’s a capable office chip, but why would you buy it over alternatives that perform better, have more modern chipsets/connections/etc, and are cheaper over the lifecycle?

        • ronch
        • 2 years ago

        Between the 4560 and the 8350 I think the 8350 can be an interesting alternative. I’m not saying anyone should buy it, I’m saying it’s an interesting option. But given that Ryzen is here of course it makes sense to drop a few bucks more for something more modern.

      • RAGEPRO
      • 2 years ago

      I mean, no. See:

      [url<]http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/AMD-FX-8350/Rating/1489[/url<] [url<]http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Intel-Pentium-G4560/Rating/3892[/url<] UserBenchmark isn't the best source but I find it makes a pretty decent guideline, and the guideline clearly is in favor of the Pentium. Lower power consumption and better overall performance, plus a newer platform. I can't even imagine anyone buying a Bulldozer-family CPU in 2017 for any purpose.

      • EndlessWaves
      • 2 years ago

      You have to admit that if you’re making your buying decision based on simple statistics such as core count then it’s a waste of time to be reading a hardware review site.

        • ronch
        • 2 years ago

        No, not really. What if one uses highly threaded software? The FX should make more sense than a fast dual core, strictly 2-thread chip.

          • Redocbew
          • 2 years ago

          [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3at_Ev2kOoI<]It's dead.[/url<] Very dead. Edit: Just to play along, because I don't want to only leave trolly youtube links I'll say that anyone who is aware of the requirements of their software on this level should also know that these are not the only two CPUs on the planet Earth. The fact that you're even presenting this as if it were a real choice is just ridiculous.

    • Froz
    • 2 years ago

    Seeing how the “news” was created and tracking changes between the articles that described it is fascinating. I wonder if the people involved simply did it consciously to get more clicks, or they really thought they are writing a legitimate story.

    Digiworthy: “Allegedly, Intel is planning to limit the production of the Pentium G4560 to artificially increase its price and boost the sales of the expensive Core i3 model.”
    “Intel is said to be creating an artificial shortage of the G4560 so that the price difference to the Intel Core i3-7100 is not so much, and thus restoring some appeal for the latter.”

    Techpowerup: “According to a DigiWorthy report, Intel has decided to scale down production of the Pentium G4560 in a bid to cripple its availability, and force consumers to opt for pricier 7th generation Core i3 parts.”

    Nah, they must have done it on purpose, no one can be such an idiot.

    But, on the other hand, this is nothing new, rumours are with humanity since we learned to talk, or maybe even before that :p.

    • albundy
    • 2 years ago

    Pentium Power! It must be alive! The commercial says so. [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xJSstGwB8s[/url<]

    • NoOne ButMe
    • 2 years ago

    But that is the thing, “effectively kill” as in the production amount will be decreased greatly. Probably in line with previous Pentiums as that ASP that lacked hyperthreading.

    Both the rumors and Intel’s statements can be true, and probably are true.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 2 years ago

      If you have a SKU that is selling and makes you money you don’t starve production of it. You sell as many as you can and accept your customer’s money.

        • NoOne ButMe
        • 2 years ago

        Intel’s trying to increase it’s profit and margins.

        The competition this part has are Intel’s more expensive parts.

        • raddude9
        • 2 years ago
    • chuckula
    • 2 years ago

    DON’T BELIEVE INTEL’S LIES!!

    DON’T CLICK THIS LINK WHATEVER YOU DO!

    [url<]https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1304308-REG/intel_bx80677g4560_pentium_g4560_3_5_ghz.html[/url<] THAT'S A [b<]THIRTEEN DOLLAR MARKUP!![/b<] [b<]THIRTEEN[/b<] [b<][i<]DOLLARS[/i<][/b<] Any kind of price increase like that is [b<]absolute proof[/b<] that a product has been canceled by the vendor. I mean, just look at AMD's cancellation of Polaris.

    • slowriot
    • 2 years ago

    [quote<]Seems pretty open-and-shut to me.[/quote<] Uh... it does? Ok. Well we certainly have a very different definition of the burden for one making closing statements like the one in this article. The rumors are indeed even less sourced, but if that statement from Intel is what you qualify as "open-and-shut" then you're only a tiny fraction above the rumors.

      • flip-mode
      • 2 years ago

      Whaaat? Since when is a statement directly from Intel just “a tiny fraction above the rumors”?

        • sreams
        • 2 years ago

        Would Intel make any other statement than the one they did? If they were creating an artificial shortage, and if they had plans to kill off the chip in the near future, but not yet… would they simply come out and say so? I don’t think any company would.

        Rumor: “Intel is doing something they don’t want people to know about!”

        Intel: “No, we aren’t doing anything we don’t want people to know about!”

        Case closed!

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 2 years ago

      Intel’s legal department is not going to allow company representatives to make misleading statements that would have a material effect on the company’s share price.

        • slowriot
        • 2 years ago

        There, as you stated, multiple rumors. Intel could absolutely be limiting supply on purpose and still living up to the statement they gave you. It’s a non-answer answer. There’s tons of leeway in it intentionally. It’s exactly what I’d expect from them though, I’m more concerned this is your idea of open-and-shut. My issues…

        You gave no information on who replied to you. Would this person(s) even know? Why are you so confident anyone in legal even reviewed such a statement? (Even more perplexing is the suggestion that malfeasance never happens from corporations like Intel, even on this scale, that would be absurd.) It’s also not apparent if you made any attempts to check with other potentially related parties and how they’re being impacted or not. i.e. there are no comments from retailers or distributors.

        I find it strange that you took their, by your own admission, brief statement and then proceeded to… say it refutes rumors it doesn’t even have the detail to fully address, give your own guesses to why the rumors could have been spawned without any evidence to back those up, and then made your closing statement like you did any real work here.

        Again, I’m not suggesting the rumors are accurate either. But your language and declarations here are not remotely supported by your level of investigation/proof.

          • Redocbew
          • 2 years ago

          Strong with the RDF this one is.

          • Jeff Kampman
          • 2 years ago

          There are not “multiple rumors;” there is one report (combined with a bit of innuendo) that has been grossly distorted on its way through other sites’ news desks.

          Hardware.fr (the press arm of the retailer of the same name) says it learned “supply of [the G4560] will remain difficult throughout the summer” here: [url<]http://www.hardware.fr/news/15185/penurie-pentium-g4560.html[/url<] The author of that piece publicly wonders whether Intel poorly planned its production or is intentionally limiting supply, but that's as far as it goes. In any case, the piece doesn't state whether Intel is adjusting global supply of the chip. Nowhere does that article unequivocally assert that "Intel is planning to limit the production of the Pentium G4560 to artificially increase its price and boost the sales of the expensive Core i3 model," but that's exactly what some outlet called "Digiworthy" claims: [url<]http://digiworthy.com/2017/07/07/intel-pentium-g4560-prices/[/url<] [url=https://www.techpowerup.com/235035/intel-pentium-g4560-cannibalizing-core-i3-sales-company-effectively-kills-it<]TechPowerUp[/url<] took the Digiworthy "report" and added their own spin to it: "Intel has decided to scale down production of the Pentium G4560 in a bid to cripple its availability, and force consumers to opt for pricier 7th generation Core i3 parts." Nowhere along the way did either site contact Intel PR to at least get a statement. The problem, as I note, is that neither of the secondary "rumors" make the least bit of sense. If Intel was trying to "force consumers to opt for pricier 7th generation Core i3 parts," why are the Pentium G4600 and G4650 still widely available for what are essentially their list prices? Intel has not changed its tray pricing for the chips, so increased demand would make plenty of sense. We don't generally name the specific employees that we communicate with at companies, nor do we need to. A statement from Intel PR is a statement from Intel PR, as far as it goes. If Intel is actually winding down production of one of its chips without informing the public, it would be a bombshell, especially now that this statement is part of the public record. Consider [url=http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/nasdaq/main/nasdaq-equityrules/chp_1_1/chp_1_1_4/chp_1_1_4_3/chp_1_1_4_3_4/chp_1_1_4_3_4_7/default.asp<]the Nasdaq disclosure requirements:[/url<] [quote<]Except in unusual circumstances, a Nasdaq-listed Company shall make prompt disclosure to the public through any Regulation FD compliant method (or combination of methods) of disclosure of any material information that would reasonably be expected to affect the value of its securities or influence investors' decisions.[/quote<] Pretty sure an unsourced assertion like "Intel is planning to limit the production of the Pentium G4560 to artificially increase its price and boost the sales of the expensive Core i3 model" qualifies as "material information that would reasonably be expected to affect the value of its securities or influence investors' decisions," and it would be an epic bit of misdirection if the company blamed "a normal demand fluctuation" for any shortage that was actually caused by production changes.

            • ludi
            • 2 years ago

            Thanks for following up on this!

            • NoOne ButMe
            • 2 years ago

            Maybe this is semantics, but I read “winding down” as in stopping, completely.

            I have no idea if the rumors are true, but the “facts” of the rumors in terms of lowering product and Intel’s statement seem like they could both be true.

            Intel reducing the production to levels of previous Pentium parts at this price point could be possible, correct? Or reducing it past that, but still continuing to produce them.

            And, selling fewer of these, presumably raising ASP slightly, shouldn’t change the value of decisions. IMO. Because people will just spend 10-15 more bucks on a slightly more expensive pentium.

            • ludi
            • 2 years ago

            As long as Intel’s official pricelist doesn’t change, the only advantage of tweaking the supply MIGHT be a slight uptake in i3 sales as the price difference narrows. They won’t reap any advantages of the higher ASP, the resellers will get it.

            • slowriot
            • 2 years ago

            This is literally how you opened your article above: “Over the past couple days, a number of unsubstantiated rumors have arisen regarding the future of .” If there were not multiple rumors then why did you say there were?

            Good grief. You did a very poor job in your write up. All the information you shared here should have been included above but wasn’t. It shouldn’t have taken this conversation to get it. I deeply disagree on the notion of sources. It’s part of a larger issue on tech journalism being a gigantic joke of an industry that almost universally, like you’re doing, regurgitates what they’re told with zero actual investigation. And you also didn’t address any efforts you did or didn’t make to back up Intel’s statement with other impacted parties.

            I’ll just repeat myself in regards to you quoting Nasdaq disclosure requirements. It’s absurd of you to suggest these companies always follow the rules. While it is true the vast majority of the time, it is not something we can just take for granted given the history of well… any large industry and the corporations that operate within it.

            • Redocbew
            • 2 years ago

            Obligatory:

            [url<]https://xkcd.com/258/[/url<] It's not about always taking the word of some mega-corp at face value. Yes I know you don't understand. That's why you're like the stick-dude in the comic.

          • K-L-Waster
          • 2 years ago

          There are also “multiple rumours” that the Earth is flat, the moon landings never happened, and Elvis is still alive.

          The one thing each of these has in common with this latest Intel story is that no level of proof that they’re incorrect seems to be enough to convince certain people.

            • NoOne ButMe
            • 2 years ago

            Scott Wasson still runs Techreport, didn’t you know? He made a clone to work for AMD so he can do two jobs!

            • kvndoom
            • 2 years ago

            It’s true! I saw him with my own three eyes!

        • Jonsey
        • 2 years ago

        I’m usually not one for conspiracy theories but you can’t blindly take the word of a company spokesman.

        A misleading statement could easily have a positive effect on the company’s share price. Consider:

        Internal analysis at Intel shows the pentium G4560 cannibalizing higher tier processors. One option would be to discontinue the model. However, Intel might face backlash with that action. Another option would be to produce less pentiums than the market demands. This increases prices for the G4560, directing consumers to higher priced models. You yourself direct consumers to a higher priced cpu if they can’t find a G4560. What’s Intels profit margin on a G4560 vs a G4600?

        Would Intel admit to the second option? Why should they? They have no legal obligation to disclose their internal company strategy to a journalist or blogger.

        Let’s be honest here. A high bang for the buck processor that is low profit for Intel isn’t going to be high on the priority list to respond to increased demand.

          • K-L-Waster
          • 2 years ago

          [quote<]A misleading statement could easily have a positive effect on the company's share price[/quote<] Yes... and that's *exactly* why the disclosure rules Jeff mentioned exist. So that companies can't jawbone their stock price around without fear of consequences. And if Intel was soooo worried about the G4560 cannibalizing sales of higher priced parts, *why did they release it in the first place?* There hasn't been viable competition at that price point in ages, so it would have been ludicrously simple to just have the i3 be the bottom of the product line years ago and be done with it.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 2 years ago

      If a direct statement isn’t confirmation, what is?

      Do you need a counter-mole to refute the purported moles?

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        I hate the mole people.

    • elites2012
    • 2 years ago

    i really dont think they are rumors. some of these sites are getting their info from moles. intel is still upset that AMD had made a comeback and cut into their i7 sales. the i5 sales are not that affected yet.

      • flip-mode
      • 2 years ago

      EXACTLY!!!! Intel’s way of showing AMD it is upset about Threadripper is to meddle with Pentium G4560 pricing and availability. You’ve exposed the sinister plot!

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        And they’d have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn’t for those meddling [s<]kids[/s<] conspiracy hunters!

          • chuckula
          • 2 years ago

          AND THEIR DOG TOO!

            • Redocbew
            • 2 years ago

            And their dogs fleas. Remember the black plague. It was the fleas that started it.

            THEY’RE INFECTING YOUR MIND!

        • K-L-Waster
        • 2 years ago

        Assuming that’s true, the connection between that and stealth killing the G4560 is…? Help me out here….

    • chuckula
    • 2 years ago

    So we’re faced with a choice of an unverified conspiracy theory that fits my preconceived anti-Intel bias or some meaningless “facts” [b<][i<]that they want you to believe sheeple![/b<][/i<] I'm going all-conspiracy theory all the time!

      • NovusBogus
      • 2 years ago

      What a thoroughly 2017 thing to say. :p

      • derFunkenstein
      • 2 years ago

      And now to be completely transparent, Intel will refute these conspiracy theories by [s<]posting[/s<] tweeting screenshots of emails that confirm the conspiracy.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 2 years ago

    The cryptomining craze theory is a pretty reasonable guess as to what happened to it.

    Not a surprise nobody asked Intel what was up. Raising questions in a blog post is what passes for journalism these days.

      • Takeshi7
      • 2 years ago

      Cryptominers are not wasting their money on a G4560. They are buying Celerons because they just need cheap CPUs. They don’t need CPU performance and they don’t care about hyperthreading.

      Edit: Lol I get downvoted even though I’m right. Look at any site. They don’t use G4560s, they use celerons:
      [url<]http://www.cryptobadger.com/2017/04/build-ethereum-mining-rig-hardware/[/url<] [url<]http://www.coinminingrigs.com/how-to-build-a-6-gpu-mining-rig/[/url<] [url<]http://www.thecryptomining.info/2017/04/6-gpu-ethereum-mining-rig-guide.html[/url<] [url<]https://blockoperations.com/6-gpu-mining-rig-amd-rx580-intel-lga-1151-ethereum-zcash/[/url<]

        • Krogoth
        • 2 years ago

        They are getting whatever cheap CPU that they can get their hands on. There isn’t that much of a price difference between Celeron and Pentiums though.

        I wouldn’t be too surprised that are buying up Pentiums if they cannot get their hands on Celerons.

          • Takeshi7
          • 2 years ago

          Yeah, but Celerons are way more available than these high demand Pentiums, so I highly doubt miners are buying them.

          • blahsaysblah
          • 2 years ago

          This is not professional miners, this is craze mode. Just regular folks setting up machine in basement to make a few extra bucks and not report to tax man. They certainly would get a G4560 or similar because it can be re-purposed as very good CPU and it will have great re-sale value versus a likely just throw away Celeron.

      • NovusBogus
      • 2 years ago

      Hey, at least the blog post has proper syntax and grammar. That puts it above a lot of what’s going into “reputable” newspapers these days.

      • Srsly_Bro
      • 2 years ago

      If the goal of cryptomining is to maximize profit, that hypothesis is only plausible if lesser priced options are out of stock or face a greater demand than more expensive options. CPU Processing power doesn’t matter for mining and the cheapest CPU will meet the needs of the system.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        Take whatever you can get your hands on.

        I do have a feeling, though, that there is additional competition for the CPU from gamers on a budget. Hyperthreading is a big deal, and I’m sure Intel is only willing to sell “so many” CPUs at a given price point. It’s probably not artificial demand so much as it is too good of a deal compared to the rest of the line.

        • ludi
        • 2 years ago

        The goal of cryptomining is to get your farm up and producing as quickly as possible before the inevitable bubble pop. That means economizing time to build, not just cost of build, so you gotta order whatever is in stock.

          • Takeshi7
          • 2 years ago

          But Celerons are much more available than Pentiums. There’s plenty of stock of Celerons, whereas the Pentiums sold out and increased in price above MSRP. So that theory doesn’t hold much water.

    • tsk
    • 2 years ago

    I guess Ryzen 3 will sell like hotcakes if it’s priced right.

      • whm1974
      • 2 years ago

      I really hope so.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This