Intel Celeron N5100 vs Intel Core i3-4130 Comparison

The Intel Core i3-4130 and the Intel Celeron N5100 are two processors from very different corners of Intel's lineup that land in almost exactly the same place in the performance tables. The i3-4130 is a desktop Haswell part with 2 cores and 4 threads; the Celeron N5100 is a mobile Jasper Lake chip built on the Tremont architecture with 4 cores and 4 threads. Despite the gulf in design philosophy, the recorded data shows the two chips separated by roughly one percent in every benchmark in the database, which makes this one of the closest head-to-head pairings on record.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The i3-4130 sweeps all five recorded tests, but the margins are narrow enough that calling it a decisive winner would overstate the case. Starting with the oldest test, Cinebench R15 multi-core: the i3-4130 scores 285 points against 282 for the Celeron N5100, a lead of 1.1 percent. In Cinebench R20 multi-core the gap is slightly tighter, 1189 versus 1179, or 0.8 percent in favor of the Haswell desktop chip.

Single-core results follow the same pattern. The i3-4130 posts 168 points in Cinebench R20 single-core against 166 for the N5100, a 1.2 percent advantage, which is the largest margin in the entire head-to-head set. Cinebench R23 tells a similar story: 2833 versus 2809 in multi-core (0.9 percent) and 400 versus 396 in single-core (1 percent).

The consistency of these margins across renderers and thread counts is the most interesting feature of the data. Whether the workload is single-threaded or fully loaded, the i3-4130 lands between 0.8 and 1.2 percent ahead. There is no test where the N5100 flips the result, and no test where the i3-4130 breaks away. Both processors sit in the 26th percentile versus all CPUs in the database, and their aggregate scores of 975 and 966 confirm the same picture: these are functionally equivalent performers.

The database also shows what each chip's neighborhood looks like. The i3-4130's closest rivals are the AMD Athlon X4 840, the Intel Core i3-4150T, and the AMD A10-7870K, all with an average score of 975, dead even with the i3-4130 itself, plus the Intel Core i5-5257U a fraction behind at 976 in the database average. The Celeron N5100's neighbors include the Intel Xeon X5570 at 967, the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U and Intel Core i5-2400S at 968, and the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T at 963. In other words, the N5100 performs at the level of a Sandy Bridge-era desktop quad and a Zen+ mobile quad, despite being a low-power Celeron, while the i3-4130 keeps company with mid-range parts of its own era.

Where Each One Wins

Strictly on benchmark results, the i3-4130 wins everywhere: all five tests, no exceptions. Its 2 cores and 4 threads, running at a 3.40 GHz base clock with no boost mechanism, edge out the N5100 in every Cinebench run recorded. For any workload shaped like these rendering tests, the data says the i3-4130 is the marginally faster choice, and its lack of a boost clock means its 3.40 GHz is what you get all the time.

The Celeron N5100 wins nothing on raw scores, but the spec sheet points to where it belongs. Its 6 W TDP against the i3-4130's 54 W is the defining difference: the N5100 delivers essentially identical benchmark output at a fraction of the power draw. It is a mobile-segment, BGA-soldered part, meaning it is fixed to its board rather than socketed, which suits compact, fanless, or thermally constrained systems rather than desktop towers. Its newer memory support (DDR4 and LPDDR4 versus DDR3) and newer integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 24EU versus HD 4400) also come from a much more recent platform generation, even though production has since ended.

So the split is straightforward. The i3-4130 is the pick when every last percentage point of compute matters and a desktop socket (Intel Socket 1150) is available. The N5100 is the pick when the priority is efficiency, modern platform features, and a small form factor, since it gives up less than 1.2 percent in any recorded test.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall?

A: The Intel Core i3-4130. It wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, with margins between 0.8 and 1.2 percent. Its aggregate database score of 975 also edges out the N5100's 966.

Q: How big is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The i3-4130 scores 2833 versus 2809 for the N5100, a 0.9 percent advantage, or 24 points.

Q: Which chip uses less power?

A: The Celeron N5100, by a wide margin. Its TDP is 6 W, compared with 54 W for the i3-4130, while delivering nearly identical benchmark results.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to the broader market?

A: Both sit in the 26th percentile versus all CPUs in the database. The i3-4130 ranks dead even with the AMD Athlon X4 840 and AMD A10-7870K, while the N5100 matches chips like the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U and Intel Core i5-2400S.

Q: Which has more cores and threads?

A: The N5100 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The i3-4130 has 2 cores and 4 threads, relying on hyper-threading rather than physical cores, yet still matches the N5100's multi-core output in every test.

Q: Can either CPU be overclocked?

A: No. Both the i3-4130 and the N5100 have locked multipliers.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ on nearly every line of the spec sheet. Core and thread counts diverge: 2 cores with 4 threads on the i3-4130 versus 4 cores with 4 threads on the N5100. Clock behavior is also opposite in approach: the i3-4130 runs a fixed 3.40 GHz base clock with no boost, while the N5100 starts at 1100 MHz and boosts up to 2.80 GHz.

The TDP gap is the headline number: 54 W for the desktop part versus 6 W for the mobile part. Packaging differs accordingly, with the i3-4130 using Intel Socket 1150 and the N5100 soldered to Intel BGA 1338. Market segments differ too: Desktop versus Mobile. The i3-4130 is listed as Active in production, while the N5100 is End-of-life.

Memory support is another dividing line: DDR3 on the i3-4130 versus DDR4 and LPDDR4 on the N5100, both on dual-channel buses. The N5100 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s; no equivalent figure is recorded for the i3-4130. PCI Express is similar in generation but not in scale: the i3-4130 offers Gen 3, while the N5100 offers Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics differ as well, with HD 4400 on the Haswell chip and UHD Graphics 24EU on the Jasper Lake chip. Neither supports ECC memory.

Architecture Differences

The architectural contrast spans many generations of Intel process technology. The i3-4130 is a Haswell design built on Intel's 22 nm node, with a die size of 177 mm² and 1,400 million transistors. The N5100 is a Tremont design, codenamed Jasper Lake, built on the 10 nm node with a die size of 63.8 mm²; no transistor count is recorded for it.

Cache layouts differ in structure. The i3-4130 carries 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3. The N5100 has the same 64 KB L1 per core, but consolidates to 1.5 MB of shared L2 and 4 MB of shared L3. The newer chip thus has more total last-level cache, distributed differently across its four cores.

The thread topology difference matters for interpretation. Haswell's 2 cores with 4 threads rely on simultaneous multi-threading to fill execution units, while Tremont's 4 cores with 4 threads have no SMT and instead use physical cores. The benchmark data shows these two strategies converge on nearly identical throughput in Cinebench, a useful illustration that core count alone does not determine performance when clock speeds and per-clock efficiency differ this much: 3.40 GHz sustained on a 22 nm desktop design versus a 1100 MHz base with a 2.80 GHz boost on 10 nm.

The Verdict

On pure performance, the i3-4130 wins, full stop. Five tests, five victories, margins under 1.2 percent across the board. If the decision comes down solely to which chip renders faster in Cinebench R15, R20, or R23, the Haswell desktop part is the answer, and its Socket 1150 packaging makes it serviceable in a standard desktop build.

But the data frames the Celeron N5100's case more compellingly than a loss column suggests. It matches the i3-4130's output within one percent while operating at a 6 W TDP versus 54 W, on a 10 nm process versus 22 nm, with DDR4 or LPDDR4 memory versus DDR3, and with 46.9 GB/s of recorded memory bandwidth. It trades away socketability and a sliver of speed for efficiency and platform modernity. Buyers choosing between them should ask what the machine is for: a socketed desktop where benchmark position is the tiebreaker points to the i3-4130, while a compact, power-limited system points to the N5100 despite its end-of-life status. By the numbers, the performance question between these two is essentially settled in a draw; everything else in the spec sheet decides it.