CPU Comparison

The Intel Celeron N5100 and AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 are both low-power mobile processors, but they approach their roles from opposite design philosophies. The N5100 uses four efficient Tremont cores, while the R1600 uses two higher-clocked Zen cores. Benchmark data shows the two are remarkably close in raw compute, with the N5100 holding a slim but consistent edge across every tested workload. The average benchmark score for the N5100 is 966, placing it at the 26th percentile of all CPUs, while the R1600 scores 958, also at the 26th percentile. This near-identical positioning makes the choice between them less about outright performance and more about platform features and power characteristics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are striking for their uniformity. Across all five Cinebench tests, the Intel Celeron N5100 wins every single matchup, but by margins that are almost negligible. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the N5100 scores 282 against the R1600's 280, a delta of just 0.7%. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar story: 1179 for Intel versus 1169 for AMD, a 0.9% advantage. The single-core tests are equally tight, with the N5100 ahead by 0.6% in R20 single-core (166 vs 165) and 0.8% in R23 single-core (396 vs 393).

The largest gap appears in the R23 multi-core test, where the N5100 scores 2809 against 2784, still only a 0.9% difference. These are not the kind of margins that translate into perceptible real-world differences in most applications. The data indicates that for sustained multi-threaded rendering, the two processors are functionally equivalent, despite the N5100 having twice as many physical cores. The R1600's higher base clock of 2.60 GHz and boost of 3.10 GHz compensate almost exactly for its two-core limitation against the N5100's four cores running at 1.10 GHz base and 2.80 GHz boost.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, both chips sit in a crowded field of older desktop and mobile parts. The N5100's nearest rival is the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T, which it edges by 0.3% in average score. The R1600's closest competitor is the AMD Opteron 4386, where it leads by 0.1%. The N5100 also trades blows with the Intel Xeon X5570 (0.1% behind), AMD Ryzen 7 3700U (0.2% behind), and Intel Core i5-2400S (0.2% behind). The R1600 finds itself similarly matched against the Intel Core i7-950 (0.1% ahead), AMD Athlon X4 870K (0.2% ahead), and Intel Xeon W3550 (0.2% ahead). These deltas confirm that both processors are essentially peer performers, with neither able to break away from the pack.

Where Each One Wins

Despite the N5100's clean sweep in the head-to-head benchmarks, the real differentiation lies in platform characteristics rather than raw scores. The Intel Celeron N5100 wins on efficiency and integrated functionality. Its thermal design power of 6 watts is dramatically lower than the R1600's 25 watts, making it suitable for fanless or passively cooled designs. The N5100 also includes integrated UHD Graphics 24EU, which means a complete system can be built without a discrete GPU. This makes it the clear choice for ultra-compact, low-power appliances, thin clients, or basic media playback devices where the 0.6-0.9% benchmark advantage is irrelevant.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 wins in areas that the benchmarks do not capture. It supports ECC memory, a critical feature for reliability in embedded storage, networking, or industrial control applications where data corruption is unacceptable. The R1600 also has a significantly higher 3.10 GHz boost clock, which can provide snappier responsiveness in lightly threaded tasks that are not purely compute-bound. Its 14 nm process node and larger 148 mm² die, built by GlobalFoundries, offer a different thermal profile that some industrial designs may prefer. The R1600 is also listed as active in production, while the N5100 is end-of-life, which matters for long-term supply guarantees in embedded product cycles.

For single-threaded workloads, the R1600's clock advantage is real but does not translate into benchmark wins. The N5100's Tremont architecture appears to have superior instructions-per-clock, allowing it to match or slightly exceed the R1600 despite a 300 MHz lower boost clock. In multi-threaded scenarios, the N5100's four cores give it a structural advantage, but the R1600's higher clocks close the gap to within 1%. The data suggests that for workloads that are heavily dependent on memory bandwidth, the N5100's 46.9 GB/s versus the R1600's 38.4 GB/s could become a factor, though this is not directly tested in the Cinebench suite.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Celeron N5100 has an average benchmark score of 966, which is 0.8% higher than the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600's 958. Both processors rank at the 26th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the R1600 supports ECC memory. The Intel Celeron N5100 does not support ECC memory. This is a significant differentiator for reliability-focused embedded applications.

Q: What is the maximum performance difference between the two in any benchmark?

A: The largest margin is 0.9%, seen in both the Cinebench R20 multi-core test (1179 vs 1169) and the Cinebench R23 multi-core test (2809 vs 2784). In both cases, the Intel Celeron N5100 is the winner.

Q: Which processor has a lower thermal design power?

A: The Intel Celeron N5100 has a TDP of 6 watts, compared to 25 watts for the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600. This makes the N5100 significantly more power-efficient for passive cooling designs.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmark data, the Intel Celeron N5100 wins all five Cinebench tests. The R1600 does not win any of the recorded benchmark comparisons.

Q: How do these processors compare to the Intel Core i7-950?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 has an average score of 958, which is 0.1% higher than the Intel Core i7-950's 957. The Intel Celeron N5100, with a score of 966, is not directly compared to the i7-950 in its nearest rivals list.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in almost every fundamental specification. The Intel Celeron N5100 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 has 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are drastically different: the N5100 runs at 1.10 GHz, while the R1600 runs at 2.60 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with the N5100 reaching 2.80 GHz and the R1600 reaching 3.10 GHz. The N5100 has a 6 watt TDP versus the R1600's 25 watt TDP.

Memory support differs, with the N5100 supporting DDR4 and LPDDR4, while the R1600 supports DDR4 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the N5100 has higher theoretical bandwidth at 46.9 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the R1600 but not on the N5100. The N5100 has integrated UHD Graphics 24EU, while the R1600 has no integrated graphics. The N5100 uses the Intel BGA 1338 socket, while the R1600 uses the AMD Socket FP5. The N5100's die size is 63.8 mm², while the R1600's is 148 mm². The R1600 has 3,500 million transistors, while the N5100's transistor count is not listed. Production status also differs, with the N5100 being end-of-life and the R1600 being active.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The Intel Celeron N5100 is built on the Tremont architecture, part of the Jasper Lake codename family, using a 10 nm process node manufactured by Intel. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 uses the original Zen architecture, with the codename "Zen" and the generation "Ryzen Embedded (Zen (Banded Kestrel))", built on a 14 nm process node by GlobalFoundries. This process difference explains much of the efficiency gap, with the newer 10 nm node allowing the N5100 to deliver comparable performance at a fraction of the power.

Cache layouts are notably different. The N5100 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.5 MB of shared L2 cache, while the R1600 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core. Both have 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The N5100's larger shared L2 cache likely contributes to its competitive performance with fewer clock cycles. The R1600's larger per-core L1 cache and higher clock speeds are its architectural counterbalance.

Both processors support PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The N5100 is a mobile segment part with part number SRKGZ, while the R1600 is also mobile segment with part number YE1600C4T2OFG. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The N5100's release date is not listed, while the R1600 was released on 2020-02-24. The R1600's 3,500 million transistors on a 148 mm² die indicate a much more complex physical design, while the N5100's smaller 63.8 mm² die reflects the denser 10 nm process.