CPU Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 and Intel Celeron N5105 are both mobile-class processors aimed at compact, low-power systems, but the benchmark data reveals a decisive performance gap. Across every shared Cinebench test, the Intel Celeron N5105 holds a consistent and significant advantage, while the AMD chip counters with a lower thermal envelope and ECC memory support. The following analysis breaks down the exact numerical differences, architectural choices, and specification splits that define this matchup.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Celeron N5105 wins all five head-to-head comparisons, and the margin is remarkably uniform across the board. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel part scores 341 against the Ryzen Embedded's 280, a delta of -17.9% for AMD. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the N5105 posts 1422 versus 1169, a -17.8% gap. The single-core tests tell the same story: Cinebench R20 single-core shows the Celeron at 200 and the R1600 at 165, a -17.5% difference, while Cinebench R23 single-core sees the Intel chip hit 478 against AMD's 393, again -17.8%.

The most telling result is Cinebench R23 multicore, the heaviest sustained workload in the set. The Celeron N5105 scores 3388, while the Ryzen Embedded R1600 manages 2784. That 604-point gap translates to the same -17.8% delta seen elsewhere, suggesting the Intel chip's advantage is not workload-specific but rather a fundamental throughput lead. Notably, the N5105 achieves this with four cores and four threads, while the R1600 uses two cores with four threads via SMT, a structural difference that appears to deliver no compensating benefit for AMD.

The average benchmark score for the R1600 is 958, while the Celeron N5105 sits at 955, a near-tie in aggregate. However, this metric is skewed because the Intel chip has additional Geekbench results in its benchmark pool (1189 multicore, 516 single-core) that the AMD part lacks. In the head-to-head Cinebench suite, the Intel processor is unequivocally faster, winning every test with deltas ranging from -17.5% to -17.9%. The data shows no single test where the Ryzen Embedded R1600 pulls ahead.

Where Each One Wins

The Celeron N5105 is the clear winner for compute-heavy tasks. Its multicore advantage in Cinebench R23 (3388 vs 2784) makes it the better choice for rendering, video encoding, or any workload that scales across cores. The single-core lead (478 vs 393 in R23 single-core) also means snappier response in lightly-threaded applications like web browsing or office productivity. For a fanless mini-PC or a lightweight NAS, the Intel part's benchmark results indicate it will handle sustained loads with notably more headroom.

The Ryzen Embedded R1600's wins are not in raw performance but in platform features. It supports ECC memory, a critical capability for data-integrity-sensitive applications like storage servers or edge gateways. The AMD chip also carries a 25W TDP versus the Celeron's 10W, which is a disadvantage in thermals, but the higher power budget suggests it may sustain its boost clocks for longer under continuous load, though the benchmark data does not directly measure this. The R1600 is also still in active production, while the N5105 is marked as end-of-life, which matters for long-term supply planning.

For users prioritizing raw compute per watt, the Celeron N5105 wins decisively: it delivers 3388 in R23 multicore at 10W, versus the R1600's 2784 at 25W. The Intel part is nearly 22% more efficient in this specific comparison, though the exact wattage figures are not directly measured in the benchmark data. The Ryzen chip's niche is narrow but real: ECC support and active production status make it a safer bet for mission-critical embedded deployments where data corruption is unacceptable.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 uses the Zen architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It integrates 3,500 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The core layout is 2 cores with 4 threads, and each core has 96 KB of L1 cache and 512 KB of L2 cache, with a shared 4 MB L3 pool. This is a desktop-class architecture scaled down for embedded use, which explains its larger die and transistor count.

The Intel Celeron N5105 uses the Tremont architecture, part of the Jasper Lake family, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. Its die size is just 63.8 mm², and the chip packs 4 cores with 4 threads, no SMT. Cache is organized differently: 64 KB of L1 per core, but a shared 1.5 MB L2, plus 4 MB of shared L3. The smaller die and simpler cache hierarchy reflect Tremont's efficiency-focused design, optimized for low power rather than peak throughput.

The process node difference is stark: 14 nm for AMD versus 10 nm for Intel. This explains the N5105's ability to deliver higher benchmark scores at a 10W TDP while using a die less than half the size. The Intel chip also integrates UHD Graphics 24EU, while the R1600 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU or headless operation. Both platforms use PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes, so expansion capability is identical, but the memory controllers differ, the R1600 supports DDR4 only, while the N5105 handles both DDR4 and LPDDR4.

Specification Differences

The most consequential specification split is core count: the R1600 has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the N5105 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Intel part's base clock is 2000 MHz with a boost of 2.90 GHz; the AMD chip runs at 2.60 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost. Despite the R1600's higher clocks, the N5105's extra physical cores win in every benchmark. The TDP gap is large, 25W for AMD versus 10W for Intel, and the socket types are incompatible: AMD Socket FP5 for the R1600 versus Intel BGA 1338 for the N5105.

Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 46.9 GB/s versus AMD's 38.4 GB/s, though both are dual-channel. ECC memory is supported only by the AMD part, a decisive factor for reliability-focused builds. The process node differs (14 nm vs 10 nm), and the production status is active for AMD but end-of-life for Intel. The release dates are not comparable, the R1600 launched in February 2020, while the N5105 has no listed release date in the data. The R1600's part number is YE1600C4T2OFG, and the N5105's is SRKGV. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is off the table for both.

The die size and transistor counts are not comparable directly, as Intel does not list a transistor count for the N5105. However, the 148 mm² AMD die versus the 63.8 mm² Intel die is a clear indicator of architectural density differences. The R1600's L1 cache is larger per core (96 KB vs 64 KB), but the N5105's shared L2 (1.5 MB total) is more generous than the R1600's per-core 512 KB allocation. Both share 4 MB of L3, making that a tie.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multicore rendering?

A: The Intel Celeron N5105 wins all multicore tests. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 3388 versus the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600's 2784, a -17.8% delta for AMD. The R15 and R20 multicore tests show the same pattern, with the N5105 ahead by 17.9% and 17.8%, respectively.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 have any performance advantage?

A: No. Across the five shared Cinebench benchmarks (R15 multicore, R20 multicore and single-core, R23 multicore and single-core), the Intel Celeron N5105 wins every test. The closest margin is -17.5% in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the N5105 scores 200 versus 165 for the R1600.

Q: Why does the Intel chip win despite the AMD chip having higher clock speeds?

A: The R1600 has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and boost of 3.10 GHz, while the N5105 runs at 2.00 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost. However, the N5105 has 4 physical cores versus the R1600's 2 cores with 4 threads. The extra two physical cores more than compensate for the clock deficit in all tested workloads.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 has a TDP of 25W, while the Intel Celeron N5105 is rated at 10W. This is a 15W difference, making the Intel part significantly more power-efficient on paper. The benchmark data shows the N5105 delivering higher scores while using a lower TDP envelope.

Q: Does either CPU support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Celeron N5105 does not. This is a key differentiator for applications that require error-correcting memory, such as storage servers or financial data processing.

Q: Which chip has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Celeron N5105 includes integrated graphics, specifically UHD Graphics 24EU. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU or will run headless. This makes the Intel chip suitable for compact systems without a dedicated graphics card.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 ranks in the 26th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Celeron N5105 sits at the 25th percentile. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical, 958 for AMD versus 955 for Intel, but the head-to-head Cinebench results consistently favor the Intel chip.