CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i5-4288U and Intel Celeron G6900TE occupy the same performance tier, with average benchmark scores of 927 and 925, respectively. However, the similarity ends there. The data shows a decisive sweep for the Celeron in every shared benchmark, with margins ranging from 16.7% to 17%. The i5-4288U is a 2013 mobile part, while the G6900TE is a 2022 desktop chip; despite the Celeron’s lower nominal position in Intel’s lineup, its architectural advantage proves overwhelming in this comparison.

The Verdict

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Celeron G6900TE wins all five head-to-head tests, making it the superior choice for any workload captured by Cinebench. The Core i5-4288U, despite its higher core count of 4 threads versus 2, cannot overcome the generational gap. Specifically, the G6900TE leads by 16.7% in Cinebench R15 multicore (270 vs 225) and by 16.8% in R20 multicore (1128 vs 939). The single-core gap is equally stark, with the Celeron ahead by 17% in R20 single-core (159 vs 132) and 16.9% in R23 single-core (379 vs 315).

For users prioritizing raw multi-threaded throughput, the G6900TE is the clear pick; its scores in R23 multicore (2687) eclipse the i5’s 2237 by a substantial margin. Conversely, the i5-4288U offers no performance category where it wins, its sole advantage lies in its 28W TDP versus the Celeron’s 35W TDP, which may matter for thermally constrained mobile builds. However, the data does not suggest the i5 is competitive in any compute benchmark; it is strictly a lower-power alternative. The percentile ranking for both CPUs is identical at 25, indicating both sit in the bottom quarter of all processors, but within this matchup, the G6900TE is the definitive performer.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different eras of Intel design. The i5-4288U belongs to the Haswell architecture, built on a 22 nm process at Intel’s own foundry, with a die size of 118 mm² and 1,400 million transistors. It features 2 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 3.10 GHz. Its cache hierarchy consists of 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 3 MB shared L3. Memory support is limited to DDR3, and it lacks ECC support. The integrated graphics are Intel HD 5100, and it uses the mobile-oriented Intel BGA 1168 socket.

The Celeron G6900TE, by contrast, is based on Alder Lake-S, fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process. It offers 2 cores and 2 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and no boost capability. Its cache layout is more generous per core: 80 KB L1, 1.25 MB L2, and 4 MB shared L3. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, with a dual-channel memory bus, and includes PCIe Gen 5 connectivity. The integrated GPU is UHD Graphics 710, and it uses the LGA 1700 socket for desktop platforms. The production status for the Celeron is listed as active, whereas the i5 has no active status listed.

The architectural gap is stark: the Celeron’s 10 nm process and newer Alder Lake core design deliver higher instructions per clock, which is evident in its single-core dominance. The i5’s Haswell core, while offering simultaneous multithreading, cannot compensate for the older microarchitecture. The Celeron’s larger L2 cache (1.25 MB per core vs 256 KB) and higher L3 (4 MB vs 3 MB) also contribute to its superior memory subsystem performance. The i5’s boost clock of 3.10 GHz is higher than the Celeron’s fixed 2.40 GHz, yet the latter still wins in every test, underscoring the per-clock efficiency advantage of Alder Lake.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a consistent pattern of Celeron superiority across all five Cinebench iterations. In the oldest test, Cinebench R15 multicore, the G6900TE scores 270 against the i5’s 225, a delta of -16.7%. This is not a marginal win; it represents a clear generational leap. Moving to Cinebench R20 multicore, the scores are 1128 for the Celeron and 939 for the i5, with a delta of -16.8%. The consistency of the margin, hovering around 16.7% to 17%, suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-specific.

Single-core tests reinforce the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Celeron posts 159 versus the i5’s 132, a 17% advantage. In R23 single-core, the Celeron’s 379 dwarfs the i5’s 315, a 16.9% lead. This is particularly telling because the i5 has a higher boost clock (3.10 GHz) than the Celeron’s base-only 2.40 GHz. The fact that the Celeron wins single-core by nearly 17% despite a 0.7 GHz clock disadvantage illustrates the massive IPC improvement in Alder Lake over Haswell.

The multicore results are equally notable because the i5 has 4 threads versus the Celeron’s 2. Despite having twice the thread count, the i5 cannot match the Celeron; in R23 multicore, the Celeron’s 2687 exceeds the i5’s 2237 by 16.7%. This indicates that the Celeron’s per-core performance is so far ahead that it overcomes its lack of SMT. There are no tests where the i5 wins; the winsA count is 0, and winsB is 5. The data offers no nuance, every benchmark tells the same story of Celeron dominance.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Celeron G6900TE scores 379 in Cinebench R23 single-core, compared to the Intel Core i5-4288U’s 315. This gives the Celeron a 16.9% advantage.

Q: Does the Core i5-4288U’s higher thread count help it in multicore tests?

A: No. Despite having 4 threads versus the Celeron’s 2, the i5 loses all multicore tests. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the i5 scores 2237 while the Celeron scores 2687, a 16.7% deficit for the i5.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between these two CPUs?

A: The i5-4288U has an average benchmark score of 927, while the Celeron G6900TE has an average score of 925. The difference is only 0.2%, with the i5 marginally ahead on average.

Q: Which processor has a more advanced process node?

A: The Celeron G6900TE uses a 10 nm process, whereas the i5-4288U uses a 22 nm process. The smaller node contributes to the Celeron’s efficiency and performance.

Q: Are both CPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the i5-4288U and the Celeron G6900TE are in the 25th percentile of all CPUs, indicating they are in the bottom quarter of the performance distribution.

Q: Does the i5-4288U support ECC memory?

A: No, neither CPU supports ECC memory. The i5-4288U supports only DDR3, while the Celeron G6900TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Where Each One Wins

The data provides only one winner in terms of compute performance: the Celeron G6900TE wins every benchmark in the comparison. There is no test in the head-to-head set where the i5-4288U comes out ahead. Therefore, for any workload that relies on Cinebench scores, typically rendering, 3D modeling, or other multi-threaded productivity, the Celeron is the superior choice. Its victory margins are uniform, ranging from 16.7% to 17%, which indicates a consistent architectural edge.

The i5-4288U’s only potential advantage lies in its power envelope. With a TDP of 28W versus the Celeron’s 35W, the i5 is more power-efficient on paper. This could make it suitable for ultra-thin laptops or passive-cooled designs where thermal headroom is tight. However, the benchmark data does not include any power or thermal measurements, so this remains a qualitative observation. Additionally, the i5’s mobile socket (BGA 1168) is designed for embedded or laptop use, whereas the Celeron’s LGA 1700 socket is for desktop motherboards, which may offer more upgrade or cooling options.

In terms of memory flexibility, the Celeron wins decisively by supporting both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel operation, while the i5 is locked to DDR3. The Celeron also offers PCIe Gen 5, a feature absent from the i5’s specification. For users building a new system, the Celeron’s modern platform and active production status make it far more future-proof. The i5-4288U, released in 2013, is effectively obsolete for new builds, even if its lower TDP gives it a niche in legacy mobile applications. Overall, the Celeron G6900TE is the clear winner for any performance-oriented task, while the i5-4288U retains only a theoretical power-efficiency argument.