CPU Comparison
AMD A8-9600
Celeron N5100
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD A8-9600 vs Intel Celeron N5100
Where Each One Wins
The benchmark data is unusually one-sided in this matchup. Across all five recorded Cinebench tests, the Intel Celeron N5100 takes the win in every single instance. The AMD A8-9600 does not claim a single outright victory in any of the measured workloads. However, the margins are remarkably thin, the largest deltaPct in the entire head-to-head table is just 0.6%, which occurs in the Cinebench R20 single-core test. This is not a case of one processor dominating another; rather, it is a case of one processor consistently edging ahead by hair-thin margins.
Looking at the use-case split, the Intel part wins in both single-threaded and multi-threaded scenarios, but the differences are so small that they would be imperceptible in real-world usage. The Celeron N5100 posts a 0.4% delta in Cinebench R15 multi-core and a 0.4% delta in Cinebench R20 multi-core, while the single-core deltas are 0.6% and 0.5% in R20 and R23 respectively. For any practical purpose, these two CPUs are functionally equivalent in rendering performance. The data suggests that neither chip offers a meaningful advantage in threaded workloads like video rendering or compilation, nor in lightly-threaded tasks like web browsing or office applications.
Where the two diverge significantly is in their platform characteristics rather than their benchmark scores. The Intel Celeron N5100 is a mobile part with a 6W TDP, while the AMD A8-9600 is a desktop part with a 65W TDP. That eleven-fold difference in power envelope does not translate into any performance advantage for the AMD chip in these tests, the higher power draw buys essentially nothing in Cinebench scores. The Intel part achieves parity while consuming a fraction of the power.
Architecture Differences
The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial, even though the benchmark results are nearly identical. The Intel Celeron N5100 uses the Tremont architecture on the Jasper Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The die size is 63.8 mm². The AMD A8-9600, by contrast, uses the much older Excavator architecture under the Bristol Ridge codename, manufactured on a 28 nm process by GlobalFoundries. The AMD die is 250 mm² and contains 3,100 million transistors.
Cache configurations differ notably. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.5 MB of shared L2 cache, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 320 KB of L1 cache total and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache at all. This means the Intel chip has a larger total cache footprint and a third cache level that the AMD chip lacks entirely. The absence of L3 cache on the A8-9600 is a significant architectural disadvantage, yet the benchmark scores do not reflect any major penalty.
Memory support differs as well. The Intel Celeron N5100 supports both DDR4 and LPDDR4 memory, while the AMD A8-9600 supports only DDR4. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Intel part has a higher memory bandwidth rating at 46.9 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s for the AMD chip. Neither supports ECC memory. Both use PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes.
The integrated graphics also differ: the Intel part ships with UHD Graphics 24EU, while the AMD part includes Radeon R7 graphics. The AMD chip is a desktop part on Socket AM4, while the Intel chip is a mobile part on BGA 1338. The Intel part is marked end-of-life, while the AMD part is listed as active production with a release date of July 26, 2017.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The closest contest is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Intel Celeron N5100 scores 282 against the AMD A8-9600's 281, a delta of 0.4%. This is essentially a tie within measurement noise. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where Intel scores 1179 versus AMD's 1174, again a 0.4% delta. Both processors are clearly operating at the same performance tier in multi-threaded rendering workloads.
Single-core results tell the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel part scores 166 versus 165 for AMD, a 0.6% delta, the largest margin in any test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 396 versus 394, a 0.5% delta. The Intel chip also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 2809 versus 2797, a 0.4% delta. Across all five tests, the Intel advantage ranges from 0.4% to 0.6%, with no test exceeding a single percentage point.
Looking at the broader context, these scores place both processors at the 26th percentile among all CPUs. The Intel part has an average benchmark score of 966, while the AMD part averages 962. The nearest rivals for the Intel chip include the Intel Xeon X5570 at 967 (-0.1%), the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U at 968 (-0.2%), and the Intel Core i5-2400S at 968 (-0.2%). For the AMD chip, the nearest rivals include the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T at 963 (-0.1%) and the Intel Core i3-4360T at 963 (-0.1%). Both processors sit in a dense cluster of similarly-performing CPUs, where the spread between closest rivals is under one percent.
Specification Differences
The most striking specification gap is thermal design power. The Intel Celeron N5100 has a TDP of 6W, while the AMD A8-9600 has a TDP of 65W. This is the single largest differentiator between the two parts. The Intel chip's base clock is 1100 MHz with a boost clock of 2.80 GHz, while the AMD chip runs at a base clock of 3.10 GHz and boosts to 3.40 GHz. Despite the AMD part's higher clock speeds, the benchmark results are nearly identical, a direct illustration of the architectural efficiency difference between Tremont on 10 nm and Excavator on 28 nm.
Cache specifications differ as described: the Intel part has 64 KB L1 per core, 1.5 MB shared L2, and 4 MB shared L3; the AMD part has 320 KB L1, 2 MB L2, and no L3. Process nodes differ at 10 nm versus 28 nm. Die sizes differ at 63.8 mm² versus 250 mm². Memory bandwidth differs at 46.9 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s. The Intel part supports LPDDR4 memory in addition to DDR4, while the AMD part supports DDR4 only.
Market segments differ: the Intel chip is a mobile part, while the AMD chip is a desktop part. Sockets differ: Intel BGA 1338 versus AMD Socket AM4. Production status differs: the Intel part is end-of-life, while the AMD part is active. Both have four cores and four threads, both have locked multipliers, and both lack ECC support. Both use PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Celeron N5100 has an average benchmark score of 966, while the AMD A8-9600 scores 962. Both sit at the 26th percentile among all CPUs.
Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench tests?
A: The Intel part wins all five head-to-head tests, but the largest margin is 0.6% in Cinebench R20 single-core. All other deltas are 0.4% or 0.5%.
Q: Does the AMD A8-9600 have an L3 cache?
A: No. The AMD A8-9600 has 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache. The Intel Celeron N5100 has 64 KB L1 per core, 1.5 MB shared L2, and 4 MB shared L3.
Q: What are the TDP differences between the two processors?
A: The Intel Celeron N5100 has a TDP of 6W, while the AMD A8-9600 has a TDP of 65W. The Intel part achieves similar benchmark scores at roughly one-eleventh the power envelope.
Q: Which processor supports LPDDR4 memory?
A: The Intel Celeron N5100 supports both DDR4 and LPDDR4, while the AMD A8-9600 supports DDR4 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses.
Q: What is the production status of each chip?
A: The Intel Celeron N5100 is listed as end-of-life, while the AMD A8-9600 is listed as active production with a release date of July 26, 2017.
The Verdict
The data paints a clear picture: these two processors are performance twins with dramatically different platform requirements. The Intel Celeron N5100 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head set, but by margins that are statistically negligible, the largest delta is 0.6%. Anyone choosing between these two strictly on Cinebench scores is deciding between a 282 and a 281 in R15 multi-core, or a 396 and a 394 in R23 single-core. Those differences will not be noticeable in any real workload.
The meaningful separation comes from the surrounding specifications. The Intel part achieves parity with a 6W TDP, making it suitable for fanless or ultra-low-power mobile designs. The AMD part requires a 65W TDP and desktop-class cooling, yet delivers no additional performance for that power budget. The Intel chip also brings a newer 10 nm process, a smaller die at 63.8 mm², higher memory bandwidth at 46.9 GB/s, and an L3 cache. The AMD chip counters with higher clock speeds and an active production status, but its 28 nm Excavator architecture and 250 mm² die are from an older era.
For a mobile or embedded application where power efficiency is paramount, the Intel Celeron N5100 is the clear choice, it matches the AMD part's performance at a fraction of the power draw. For a desktop build where the AM4 socket and active production status matter, the AMD A8-9600 remains viable, but the benchmark data offers no performance reason to prefer it. The Intel part wins on efficiency and architectural modernity; the AMD part wins only on platform availability. Given identical performance, the 6W processor is the more compelling engineering solution.