CPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably narrow contest. Across five Cinebench workloads, the AMD PRO A8-9600 wins every single test, yet the margins are so thin they border on statistical noise. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD scores 284 against the Celeron's 282, a delta of just 0.7%. That is the largest gap in the entire comparison. The R20 multi-core test shows 1184 versus 1179, a 0.4% edge. Single-core results follow the same pattern: R20 single-core gives AMD 167 points to Intel's 166, and R23 single-core lands at 398 versus 396. The R23 multi-core test rounds out the sweep with 2820 for AMD and 2809 for Intel, another 0.4% difference.

What does this mean in practical terms? The two processors are effectively interchangeable in raw compute throughput. The deltaPct values never exceed 0.7%, meaning no workload in this dataset separates them by even a single percentage point. For context, both sit at the 26th percentile among all CPUs tracked in the database. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical as well: 971 for the AMD part and 966 for the Intel part. The nearest rivals for the AMD PRO A8-9600 include the Intel Core i5-2400S at 968 (0.3% higher), the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U at 968 (0.4% higher), the AMD A10-7870K at 975 (0.4% lower), and the Intel Core i3-4130 at 975 (0.4% lower). The Celeron N5100's closest neighbors are the Intel Xeon X5570 at 967 (0.1% lower), the Ryzen 7 3700U again at 968 (0.2% lower), the Core i5-2400S at 968 (0.2% lower), and the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T at 963 (0.3% higher). Both chips float in a crowded midfield where a few points separate entire generations of hardware.

The sweep is real but statistically trivial. AMD wins all five head-to-head tests, yet no single result provides a decisive advantage. The largest margin, 0.7%, would be imperceptible in real-world use. This is a tie in all but the strictest numerical sense.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. The AMD PRO A8-9600 uses the Excavator architecture under the Bristol Ridge codename, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,100 million transistors onto a 250 mm² die. The Intel Celeron N5100 uses the Tremont architecture with the Jasper Lake codename, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. Its die size is 63.8 mm², and no transistor count is listed in the data. The physical contrast is stark: AMD's chip is nearly four times larger in die area, yet the Intel part delivers essentially the same benchmark performance.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The AMD processor has 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache present. The Intel part specifies 64 KB of L1 per core, 1.5 MB of shared L2, and 4 MB of shared L3. That L3 presence is a meaningful architectural advantage for Intel, even if the benchmarks do not reflect it in the final scores. The AMD chip's lack of L3 cache is a legacy of the Excavator design, which relied on a larger L2 and the integrated memory controller.

Memory support shows both similarities and divergences. Both support DDR4 and use a dual-channel memory bus. The Intel part also supports LPDDR4, which the AMD does not. Memory bandwidth numbers are close but favor Intel: 46.9 GB/s for the Celeron versus 38.4 GB/s for the PRO A8-9600. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is identical on paper: Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU.

The integrated graphics differ by brand and capability. AMD pairs the PRO A8-9600 with Radeon R7 graphics, while Intel equips the N5100 with UHD Graphics 24EU. No benchmark data is provided for either iGPU, so direct comparison is not possible from this dataset. The AMD part is a desktop processor on Socket AM4, while the Intel part is a mobile processor on BGA 1338. The AMD chip carries a 65 W TDP; the Intel part draws just 6 W. That 59 W gap is the single biggest practical difference between the two, though neither cooling nor power consumption figures appear in the benchmark scores.

The AMD processor remains in active production. The Intel Celeron N5100 is marked as end-of-life. The AMD part is listed as releasing on 2016-10-02; no release date is provided for the Intel chip. Neither processor has a launch MSRP in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 averages 971 points across all tracked benchmarks, while the Intel Celeron N5100 averages 966 points. The difference is 5 points, or roughly 0.5%.

Q: Does the Intel Celeron N5100 ever win a head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. In the five Cinebench tests recorded, the AMD PRO A8-9600 wins all of them. The Intel part's closest result is a 0.4% deficit in R20 multi-core and R23 multi-core.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 sits within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U and Intel Core i5-2400S, both scoring 968, and within 0.4% of the AMD A10-7870K and Intel Core i3-4130, both scoring 975. The Intel Celeron N5100 is within 0.3% of the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T at 963 and within 0.2% of the Ryzen 7 3700U and Core i5-2400S at 968.

Q: What is the TDP difference and why does it matter?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 has a 65 W TDP, while the Intel Celeron N5100 has a 6 W TDP. This indicates the Intel part is designed for fanless or low-power mobile systems, whereas the AMD part targets desktop sockets with active cooling.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The Intel Celeron N5100 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.5 MB of shared L2, plus 64 KB of L1 per core. The AMD PRO A8-9600 has 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache at all.

Q: Are both processors still available for purchase?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 is listed as active in production. The Intel Celeron N5100 is listed as end-of-life.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every hardware field except core count and thread count. Both have 4 cores and 4 threads. Both use dual-channel memory, support DDR4, lack ECC memory, and provide PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Beyond those commonalities, the differences are extensive. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz. The Intel part lists a base clock of 1100.00 MHz (1.10 GHz) and a boost clock of 2.80 GHz. The AMD chip's TDP is 65 W; the Intel chip's is 6 W. Sockets differ: AMD uses Socket AM4, Intel uses BGA 1338. The AMD processor is built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the Intel processor uses Intel's 10 nm process. Die size is 250 mm² for AMD and 63.8 mm² for Intel. Transistor count is 3,100 million for AMD; no figure is given for Intel.

Cache configurations diverge completely. AMD has 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3. Intel has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1.5 MB of shared L2, and 4 MB of shared L3. Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 46.9 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s. The AMD part supports only DDR4; Intel supports DDR4 and LPDDR4. Integrated graphics are Radeon R7 on AMD and UHD Graphics 24EU on Intel. Market segment differs: AMD is desktop, Intel is mobile. The AMD part is active in production; the Intel part is end-of-life. The AMD release date is 2016-10-02; the Intel release date is not provided. Part numbers are AD960BAGM44AB for AMD and SRKGZ for Intel.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: neither processor offers a meaningful performance advantage over the other. In every benchmark, the AMD PRO A8-9600 edges out the Intel Celeron N5100, but the margins never exceed 0.7%. The average benchmark scores differ by 5 points out of roughly 970. A user migrating from one to the other would see no measurable change in Cinebench performance.

The real differentiators are not in the benchmark scores but in the platform characteristics. The AMD part is a desktop chip on Socket AM4, drawing 65 W, with a larger die and more transistors. The Intel part is a mobile chip on BGA 1338, drawing 6 W, with a much smaller die and a modern 10 nm process. The Intel chip also includes 4 MB of L3 cache, which the AMD chip lacks entirely. For a desktop user with an AM4 motherboard, the AMD PRO A8-9600 is the only one of the two that fits. For a mobile or low-power embedded design, the Intel Celeron N5100 is the only viable option. The performance parity means the platform choice should drive the decision, not the raw compute scores.

The AMD chip is still in production; the Intel chip is end-of-life. That availability status matters for long-term supply planning. Neither chip is unlocked for overclocking, and neither supports ECC memory. The Intel part's support for LPDDR4 gives it more memory flexibility, and its higher memory bandwidth figure suggests better memory throughput, though this does not translate into a benchmark win in the provided Cinebench tests.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD PRO A8-9600 wins in every measured benchmark category. It takes Cinebench R15 multi-core with 284 versus 282, R20 multi-core with 1184 versus 1179, R20 single-core with 167 versus 166, R23 multi-core with 2820 versus 2809, and R23 single-core with 398 versus 396. These wins are consistent but marginal. The largest advantage is 0.7% in R15 multi-core; the smallest is 0.4% in R20 multi-core and R23 multi-core. If the selection criterion is purely the highest score on any Cinebench test, the AMD part wins all five.

The Intel Celeron N5100 wins in platform-level characteristics rather than raw benchmarks. It has a 4 MB L3 cache, which the AMD part lacks entirely. Its memory bandwidth is higher at 46.9 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s. It supports LPDDR4 in addition to DDR4. Its TDP of 6 W is dramatically lower than the AMD's 65 W, making it suitable for fanless or battery-powered designs. Its die size is 63.8 mm² versus 250 mm², and it uses a 10 nm process versus 28 nm. For any use case where power efficiency, small footprint, or modern fabrication matters more than a fraction of a percent in Cinebench, the Intel part is the better fit.

Neither chip distinguishes itself in the broader CPU landscape. Both sit at the 26th percentile, surrounded by rivals like the Core i5-2400S and Ryzen 7 3700U. The benchmark data shows two elderly, low-end processors trading blows within a rounding error of each other. The choice between them comes down to socket, TDP, and production status, not performance.