CPU Comparison

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Celeron N5105 outperforms the AMD A8-9600 in every single head-to-head test, with a consistent advantage of roughly 21% across all workloads. This is a decisive victory for Intel, despite the AMD part having a higher base and boost clock. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, placing the N5105 above its rival in both single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks, while also consuming significantly less power.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Celeron N5105 wins all five shared benchmark comparisons. The most significant margin comes in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Intel chip scores 341 against the AMD's 281, a 21.4% lead. This pattern repeats across every Cinebench iteration, suggesting a fundamental performance advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the N5105 posts 1422 points versus 1174 for the A8-9600, a 21.1% delta. The single-core results tell the same story: 200 points for Intel against 165 for AMD, a 21.2% advantage. The Intel part maintains its edge in the newer Cinebench R23 tests, scoring 3388 in multi-core (21.1% ahead) and 478 in single-core (21.3% ahead of the A8-9600's 394).

The consistency of these results is striking. Every delta falls within a narrow range of 21.1% to 21.4%, indicating that the performance gap is uniform across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. This is not a case of one chip winning in some scenarios and losing in others; the N5105 dominates every metric available in the head-to-head data. The AMD A8-9600 fails to secure a single win in any of the five comparisons.

Looking at raw benchmark scores, the N5105 also has a higher average benchmark score of 955 compared to the A8-9600's 962, though this difference is marginal and within the margin of error. However, the head-to-head results are the more reliable indicator, as they directly compare the two processors under identical test conditions. The Intel chip's wins are decisive and consistent, making it the clear performance leader in this pairing.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Celeron N5105 is faster across all multi-core benchmarks. It leads by 21.4% in Cinebench R15 (341 vs 281), 21.1% in Cinebench R20 (1422 vs 1174), and 21.1% in Cinebench R23 (3388 vs 2797).

Q: Is the AMD A8-9600 better in single-core performance?

A: No. The N5105 also wins every single-core test, beating the A8-9600 by 21.2% in Cinebench R20 (200 vs 165) and 21.3% in Cinebench R23 (478 vs 394).

Q: How do their overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The AMD A8-9600 has a marginal 0.7% higher average benchmark score (962 vs 955), but this is based on different test sets. The direct head-to-head comparisons all favor the Intel chip.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The Intel Celeron N5105 has a TDP of 10 watts, while the AMD A8-9600 is rated at 65 watts. The Intel part delivers superior performance while consuming only a fraction of the power.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The Intel Celeron N5105 includes UHD Graphics 24EU, while the AMD A8-9600 features Radeon R7 graphics.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD A8-9600 has a higher boost clock at 3.40 GHz compared to the N5105's 2.90 GHz. Despite this, the Intel chip wins all performance benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different architectural eras and design philosophies. The Intel Celeron N5105 uses the Tremont architecture on the Jasper Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process node by Intel. It has a die size of 63.8 mm². In contrast, the AMD A8-9600 uses the older Excavator architecture on the Bristol Ridge codename, manufactured on a 28 nm process by GlobalFoundries, with a much larger die size of 250 mm² and 3,100 million transistors.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The N5105 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.5 MB of shared L2 cache, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The A8-9600 provides 320 KB of total L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache at all. This lack of L3 cache on the AMD part likely contributes to its performance disadvantage despite higher clock speeds.

Memory support shows both similarities and differences. Both processors support DDR4 memory with dual-channel buses, but the Intel chip also supports LPDDR4 and offers a higher memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s for the AMD part. Neither supports ECC memory. Both have PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only), and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The market positioning also differs. The N5105 is a mobile segment processor on Intel BGA 1338 socket, while the A8-9600 is a desktop processor on AMD Socket AM4. The N5105 is end-of-life, while the A8-9600 remains active in production. The AMD chip was released in 2017, whereas no release date is listed for the Intel part.

The Verdict

The data is conclusive: the Intel Celeron N5105 is the superior processor. It wins every single benchmark comparison by a consistent margin of approximately 21%, covering both single-core and multi-core workloads. The Intel chip achieves this with a TDP of just 10 watts, compared to the AMD A8-9600's 65 watts, making it dramatically more power-efficient.

The N5105's advantage comes despite the AMD part having higher base (3.10 GHz vs 2.00 GHz) and boost (3.40 GHz vs 2.90 GHz) clocks. This indicates the Intel architecture is significantly more efficient at executing instructions per clock cycle. The Intel chip also benefits from a more modern 10 nm manufacturing process versus the older 28 nm node, and it includes L3 cache that the AMD part completely lacks.

For users prioritizing performance per watt, the N5105 is the obvious choice. Its 21% performance lead across all tests, combined with its 10-watt TDP, makes it suitable for power-constrained environments. The AMD A8-9600's higher clock speeds and larger die do not translate into any performance advantage in the available benchmark data.

The only metric where the A8-9600 slightly edges ahead is the average benchmark score (962 vs 955), but this is based on different benchmark sets and does not reflect direct comparison. In head-to-head testing, the A8-9600 has zero wins against the N5105's five. The verdict is clear: choose the Intel Celeron N5105 for better performance and efficiency.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every key specification. The Intel Celeron N5105 uses the Tremont architecture on a 10 nm process, while the AMD A8-9600 uses Excavator on 28 nm. The AMD part has a larger die (250 mm² vs 63.8 mm²) and more transistors (3,100 million vs unspecified for Intel).

Clock speeds favor AMD: the A8-9600 has a 3.10 GHz base clock and 3.40 GHz boost, versus the N5105's 2.00 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost. However, TDP heavily favors Intel at 10 watts versus 65 watts. The N5105 has 4 MB of L3 cache, while the A8-9600 has none. The Intel chip also offers higher memory bandwidth (46.9 GB/s vs 38.4 GB/s) and supports LPDDR4 in addition to DDR4.

Socket and market segment differ completely: Intel uses BGA 1338 for mobile, while AMD uses Socket AM4 for desktop. The N5105 is end-of-life, while the A8-9600 is still active. The AMD part has a known release date of July 2017, while Intel's is not listed. Neither has an unlocked multiplier or ECC support, and both have 4 cores, 4 threads, dual-channel memory, and PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Celeron N5105 wins in every benchmark category available. It is the clear choice for multi-threaded applications, leading by 21.4% in Cinebench R15, 21.1% in R20, and 21.1% in R23 multi-core tests. It also dominates single-threaded performance, with 21.2% and 21.3% leads in Cinebench R20 and R23 respectively.

The N5105 is particularly well-suited for power-sensitive applications. Its 10-watt TDP makes it appropriate for passively cooled or fanless designs, thin-and-light mobile devices, and embedded systems where thermal and power budgets are tight. The 63.8 mm² die size and modern 10 nm process contribute to its efficiency.

The AMD A8-9600's only statistical advantage is its slightly higher average benchmark score (962 vs 955), which does not reflect direct comparison results. It has a higher base and boost clock, which might appeal to users who prioritize clock speed specifications over real-world benchmark performance. Its active production status and desktop Socket AM4 platform could be relevant for system builders targeting that specific ecosystem.

However, the benchmark data does not support any use case where the A8-9600 outperforms the N5105. The Intel chip wins every workload tested, from single-threaded tasks to heavily multi-threaded renders. The A8-9600's higher TDP (65W) and lack of L3 cache put it at a disadvantage that its clock speed advantage cannot overcome. For any application where the N5105 is compatible, the data indicates it is the better performer.