Intel Celeron N5100 vs Intel Celeron N5105 Comparison

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Celeron N5105 wins every recorded multi-core benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 3388 against the N5100's 2809, a 17.1% difference. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1422 vs. 1179) and Cinebench R15 multi-core (341 vs. 282).

Q: Is the single-core performance gap the same as the multi-core gap?

A: Yes, the gap is nearly identical. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the N5105 scores 478 versus 396 for the N5100, a 17.2% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the scores are 200 and 166 respectively, a 17% difference. The consistent delta across all tests suggests a straightforward clock-speed advantage rather than an architectural difference.

Q: Do both chips have the same core and thread configuration?

A: Yes. Both processors feature 4 cores and 4 threads. They share the same Tremont architecture, Jasper Lake codename, 10 nm process node, and 63.8 mm² die size. The N5105's advantage comes entirely from higher clock speeds, not from additional cores or threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock?

A: The N5105 has a base clock of 2000 MHz, while the N5100 runs at 1100 MHz. The boost clocks are closer: 2.90 GHz for the N5105 versus 2.80 GHz for the N5100. The base clock difference of 900 MHz is the primary driver of the performance gap in sustained workloads.

Q: Do the two chips have identical integrated graphics?

A: Yes, both use UHD Graphics 24EU. They also share the same memory support (DDR4, LPDDR4), dual-channel memory bus, and 46.9 GB/s memory bandwidth. For tasks relying on the iGPU, the two processors should behave similarly, with any difference traceable to the CPU's clock speed affecting overall system responsiveness.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The N5100 has an average benchmark score of 966, while the N5105 scores 955. Despite the N5105 winning every head-to-head Cinebench test, the N5100's average is slightly higher in the database, likely due to a different mix of workloads in the averaging method. The N5100 sits at the 26th percentile of all CPUs, the N5105 at the 25th.

Where Each One Wins

The N5105 wins every single recorded head-to-head benchmark. That is 5 wins out of 5 in the database. The N5100 wins zero. If you are choosing purely on benchmark performance, the N5105 is the clear pick for any compute-heavy task.

The N5100's only statistical "win" is its average benchmark score of 966 versus 955 for the N5105. This is a marginal 1.1% difference and likely reflects the specific benchmark suite used for the average, not a real-world advantage. The N5100 also sits one percentile higher (26th vs. 25th) in the all-CPU ranking, but again, this is within the noise of the data.

For practical use, the N5105 is the better processor for Cinebench-style workloads, which correlate with video encoding, 3D rendering, and other multi-threaded productivity tasks. The N5100's lower power draw (6 W TDP vs. 10 W) might make it preferable in fanless or ultra-low-power designs, but the database does not record any thermal or efficiency benchmarks to quantify that trade-off.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture: Tremont cores on the Jasper Lake platform. They are built on Intel's 10 nm process and use the same Intel BGA 1338 socket. The die size is identical at 63.8 mm².

The cache hierarchy is also identical. Each core has 64 KB of L1 cache. The L2 cache is 1.5 MB shared across all cores, and the L3 cache is 4 MB shared. There is no difference in cache capacity or layout between the two chips.

Memory support is the same: DDR4 and LPDDR4, dual-channel, with a maximum bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. PCIe support is identical as well: Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU. Both chips lack ECC memory support and have locked multipliers.

The only architectural difference that matters is the clock speed. The N5105 runs at 2000 MHz base and 2.90 GHz boost, while the N5100 runs at 1100 MHz base and 2.80 GHz boost. Since the architecture, cache, memory, and graphics are all identical, the N5105's advantage is purely a matter of how fast the silicon is clocked.

Specification Differences

The table below shows only the fields where the two processors differ. Everything else, including cores, threads, architecture, process node, cache, memory support, integrated graphics, socket, and PCIe lanes, is identical.

| Specification | Intel Celeron N5100 | Intel Celeron N5105 |

|---|---|---|

| Base Clock | 1100 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.80 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| TDP | 6 W | 10 W |

| Part Number | SRKGZ | SRKGV |

The base clock difference is substantial: 1100 MHz versus 2000 MHz, an 81.8% higher base frequency for the N5105. The boost clock difference is smaller at 0.10 GHz, just 3.6% higher for the N5105. The TDP difference is 4 W, with the N5105 drawing 66.7% more power at its rated TDP, which reflects the higher clock speeds.

Both processors are marked as end-of-life production status and are in the mobile market segment. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, and the N5105 wins all of them. The performance gap is remarkably consistent across every test, ranging from 17.0% to 17.3%.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the N5105 scores 341 versus 282 for the N5100, a 17.3% lead. This is the largest delta in the dataset. The R20 multi-core test shows 1422 versus 1179, a 17.1% difference. The R23 multi-core test shows 3388 versus 2809, also 17.1%. The consistency here is notable: regardless of the Cinebench version, the N5105 maintains roughly the same proportional advantage.

Single-core tests tell the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the N5105 scores 200 against 166 for the N5100, a 17% lead. In R23 single-core, the scores are 478 and 396, a 17.2% difference. The fact that single-core and multi-core deltas are nearly identical confirms that the N5105's advantage is clock-driven, not core-count-driven.

The N5105 also has additional Geekbench scores in its record: 1189 multi-core and 516 single-core. The N5100 does not have corresponding Geekbench entries in the database, so no direct comparison is possible for that test suite.

Given the consistent 17% delta across all Cinebench versions, a user can expect the N5105 to deliver roughly 17% better performance in any workload that scales with CPU clock speed. This includes most single-threaded tasks and many multi-threaded tasks that are not limited by memory bandwidth, which is identical between the two chips.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Celeron N5105 is the faster processor in every measured benchmark. It wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests with a consistent 17% margin. If you need the best CPU performance from a Jasper Lake Celeron, the N5105 is the one to pick.

The N5100's only statistical advantages are its 1.1% higher average benchmark score (966 vs. 955) and its one-percentile higher placement in the all-CPU ranking (26th vs. 25th). These differences are small enough to be explained by benchmark selection and should not be interpreted as a real performance advantage. The N5100 also has a lower TDP of 6 W versus 10 W, which could matter for extremely power-sensitive designs, but the database does not include efficiency benchmarks to verify any real-world battery life or thermal benefit.

For users building a compact desktop, NAS, firewall, or thin client where CPU performance matters, the N5105 is the clear choice. Its higher base clock of 2000 MHz versus 1100 MHz ensures snappier response in everyday tasks, and the 17% multi-core lead translates directly into faster video transcoding, compilation, or file compression.

For users prioritizing absolute minimum power draw, the N5100's 6 W TDP is tempting, but the performance cost is steep: a 17% reduction across the board. Given that both chips are end-of-life and likely appear in similar low-cost boards, the N5105's higher performance makes it the better value for almost any use case. The only scenario where the N5100 makes sense is a fanless design where the 4 W TDP difference is critical for passive cooling, and even then, the performance hit needs to be accepted knowingly.