CPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the Intel Celeron N5105 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in this comparison, and it does so with near-uniform margins. Across five Cinebench tests, the N5105's advantage over the AMD A10-9700E hovers tightly between 22.6% and 22.7%. That consistency suggests a fundamental architectural edge rather than workload-specific quirks.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the N5105 scores 341 against the A10-9700E's 278, a 22.7% lead. The R20 multicore test tells the same story: 1422 versus 1160, again 22.6% ahead. Even the single-core tests, which often favor higher clock speeds, go decisively to Intel. The N5105 posts 200 in R20 single-core versus 163 for AMD, and 478 versus 390 in R23 single-core. Both represent roughly 22.6-22.7% advantages.

The largest absolute gap appears in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the N5105 reaches 3388 points compared to 2762 for the A10-9700E. That 626-point difference is substantial for two quad-core, four-thread processors. Interestingly, the percentage gap remains identical to the other tests, indicating the performance difference scales linearly across all Cinebench workloads.

What makes this sweep notable is that the AMD chip carries significantly higher clock speeds. The A10-9700E boosts to 3.50 GHz, while the N5105 tops out at 2.90 GHz. Yet raw frequency does not translate into benchmark victories here. The N5105's efficiency-per-clock advantage completely neutralizes the AMD part's 600 MHz boost clock advantage.

There is no benchmark in this dataset where the A10-9700E comes out ahead. The wins tally stands at 5-0 in favor of Intel. The closest the AMD part gets is in overall average benchmark score, where it trails by a razor-thin margin: 951 versus 955. That near-parity in the aggregate metric, despite losing every individual test, reflects the different benchmark mixes used to compute averages versus the head-to-head comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in this comparison?

A: The Intel Celeron N5105 wins all five head-to-head benchmarks. The AMD A10-9700E does not win a single test in the dataset.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multicore workloads?

A: The N5105 leads by 22.7% in Cinebench R15 multicore and 22.6% in both R20 and R23 multicore tests. The absolute scores are 341 versus 278 in R15, 1422 versus 1160 in R20, and 3388 versus 2762 in R23.

Q: Does the AMD chip's higher clock speed help it in single-core tests?

A: No. Despite a 3.50 GHz boost clock versus 2.90 GHz for Intel, the A10-9700E loses single-core tests by 22.7% in R20 (163 versus 200) and 22.6% in R23 (390 versus 478).

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The N5105 has an average benchmark score of 955, while the A10-9700E scores 951. The difference is just 0.4%, placing both at the 25th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What do the nearest rival comparisons indicate about each processor's standing?

A: The N5105's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon W3570 at an identical 955 average score and the AMD Athlon X4 870K at 956. The A10-9700E's rivals include the Intel Core i7-5500U at 953 and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U at 947.

Q: Is the N5105's benchmark lead consistent across all tested workloads?

A: Yes, the deltaPct values range from 22.6% to 22.7% across all five Cinebench tests, showing a remarkably uniform advantage regardless of single-core or multicore workload.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Celeron N5105 uses the Tremont architecture on the Jasper Lake platform, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The AMD A10-9700E employs the Excavator architecture under the Bristol Ridge codename, manufactured on a 28 nm process by GlobalFoundries. That process gap alone, 10 nm versus 28 nm, explains much of the efficiency difference between the two.

The N5105's die size is 63.8 mm², while the A10-9700E's die measures 250 mm². AMD's larger die contains 3,100 million transistors, which is notable given the older process node. Intel does not list transistor count for the N5105. The smaller die and newer process give Intel a significant density advantage.

Cache configurations differ meaningfully. The N5105 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.5 MB of shared L2 cache, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The A10-9700E has 320 KB of total L1 cache, 2 MB of L2 cache, and no L3 cache at all. The Intel part's 4 MB L3 cache is a substantial advantage for workloads that benefit from shared data across cores.

Both processors integrate graphics, but with different approaches. The N5105 pairs its CPU cores with Intel UHD Graphics featuring 24 execution units. The A10-9700E integrates Radeon R7 graphics. Neither part supports ECC memory, and both are locked (multiplierUnlocked is false for each).

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is power consumption. The N5105 has a TDP of 10 watts, while the A10-9700E draws 35 watts. That 25-watt gap reflects the process node advantage and has direct implications for cooling requirements and system design.

Clock speeds favor AMD. The A10-9700E runs at a 3.00 GHz base clock and boosts to 3.50 GHz. The N5105 starts at 2.00 GHz and boosts to 2.90 GHz. Despite the lower clocks, Intel wins every benchmark.

Memory bandwidth favors Intel. The N5105 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 memory with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth. The A10-9700E supports only DDR4 and achieves 38.4 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Socket compatibility differs completely. The N5105 uses Intel BGA 1338, a soldered mobile socket, while the A10-9700E uses AMD Socket AM4, a desktop PGA socket. The market segments reflect this: Intel targets mobile, AMD targets desktop.

The production status differs as well. The N5105 is end-of-life, while the A10-9700E remains active in production. The AMD part has a release date of 2017-07-26. The N5105 has no release date listed.

The Verdict

Benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Celeron N5105 outperforms the AMD A10-9700E in every measured workload. The 22.7% advantage in Cinebench R15 multicore, the 22.6% lead in R20 and R23, and the identical margins in single-core tests all point to a decisive architectural superiority. The N5105 achieves this while consuming only 10 watts versus 35 watts for the AMD part.

The A10-9700E's higher clock speeds, 3.50 GHz boost versus 2.90 GHz, cannot compensate for its older Excavator architecture and 28 nm process. The N5105's Tremont cores, built on 10 nm, deliver more work per clock cycle. The Intel part also benefits from 4 MB of L3 cache, which the AMD chip entirely lacks.

For anyone choosing between these two processors today, the N5105 is the stronger performer across the board. Its lower TDP makes it suitable for fanless or low-power designs, while its benchmark dominance means no performance compromise. The A10-9700E's only advantages are its active production status and AM4 socket compatibility, which may matter for system integrators with existing AM4 infrastructure.

The average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story, with the N5105 at 955 and the A10-9700E at 951. That 0.4% gap is negligible, but the head-to-head tests show a different reality. When measured directly against each other, the N5105 wins by more than a fifth in every test.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Celeron N5105 wins in every benchmark category tested. For multicore productivity tasks, it delivers 22.7% more performance in Cinebench R15 and 22.6% more in R20 and R23. Single-core workloads see the same 22.7% advantage in R20. This makes the N5105 the clear choice for any application that relies on CPU rendering, video encoding, or general compute.

The N5105 also wins on efficiency. Its 10-watt TDP is one-third of the A10-9700E's 35-watt draw. For compact systems, embedded applications, or battery-powered devices, this power advantage is decisive. The Intel part's smaller die size and newer process node suggest it runs cooler and requires less substantial cooling solutions.

The AMD A10-9700E does not win any benchmark in this dataset. However, its strengths lie outside raw CPU performance. The AM4 socket offers upgrade paths within AMD's desktop ecosystem, and the active production status means ongoing availability. The Radeon R7 integrated graphics may offer different driver characteristics than Intel's UHD Graphics, though no graphics benchmarks are included in this data.

For memory bandwidth, the N5105 leads with 46.9 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s, a 22% advantage that mirrors its CPU performance lead. The Intel part's support for LPDDR4 memory also enables lower-power memory configurations.

The verdict from the data is straightforward: the N5105 is the superior processor in every measured aspect. The A10-9700E's higher clocks and larger die do not translate into performance. Its only practical advantages are platform compatibility and continued production status, factors that matter for specific system designs but not for raw computing capability.