CPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results present an unusually tight contest between two processors separated by roughly seven years of silicon evolution. Across all five Cinebench tests, the Intel Core i3-4130 takes the win, but by margins so narrow they border on statistical noise. The largest gap appears in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i3-4130 leads by 1.2% (168 versus 166). That is a difference of two points on a synthetic workload that typically rewards higher clock speeds and newer instruction sets.

In multi-core workloads, the pattern holds. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows the i3-4130 ahead by 1.1% (285 versus 282), while R20 multi-core sees a 0.8% edge (1189 versus 1179). The R23 multi-core result repeats nearly the same story: 2833 for the i3-4130 against 2809 for the Celeron N5100, again a 0.8% delta. Single-core R23 likewise lands at 400 versus 396, a 1% lead for the older desktop chip.

What makes these numbers striking is not the winner, the i3-4130 sweeps all five tests, but the magnitude. The Celeron N5100, with four Tremont cores running at a 1.10 GHz base clock, manages to stay within striking distance of a 3.40 GHz Haswell dual-core with Hyper-Threading. The average benchmark scores reinforce this near-parity: the i3-4130 averages 975 across all tests, while the Celeron N5100 sits at 966. Both processors occupy the 26th percentile among all CPUs tracked in the database, meaning they perform roughly equivalently to the broader installed base.

The nearest rivals for each chip underscore how close these two are. The Celeron N5100's closest competitor is the Intel Xeon X5570, with an average score of 967 and a delta of -0.1%. The i3-4130's nearest rival is the AMD Athlon X4 840, matching it at 975 with a 0% delta. In other words, both processors sit in the same performance neighborhood, surrounded by chips from different eras and market segments.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is vast, yet the benchmark scores barely reflect it. The Celeron N5100 uses Intel's Tremont architecture on a 10 nm process, fabricated at Intel's own foundry. It packs four cores and four threads with no Hyper-Threading, and its die size is a mere 63.8 mm². The i3-4130, by contrast, is a 22 nm Haswell part with a 177 mm² die and 1,400 million transistors. It has two physical cores but four threads via Hyper-Threading, which helps it match the Celeron's thread count in heavily threaded workloads.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Celeron N5100 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1.5 MB of shared L2, and 4 MB of shared L3. The i3-4130 also has 64 KB of L1 per core, but its L2 is 256 KB per core (totaling 512 KB), and its L3 is 3 MB shared. The Celeron's larger shared L2 and L3 are likely compensating for its lower clock speeds and lack of SMT.

Clock behavior is another stark contrast. The Celeron N5100 lists a base clock of 1.10 GHz with a boost of 2.80 GHz, while the i3-4130 runs at a fixed 3.40 GHz with no boost capability listed. This explains why the i3-4130 edges ahead in single-core tests, it maintains a higher sustained clock without needing to ramp up. The Celeron's boost clock is 0.6 GHz lower than the i3's fixed clock, yet in single-core R23 the difference is only 1%, suggesting Tremont's instructions-per-clock efficiency nearly closes the gap.

Memory support also diverges. The Celeron N5100 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 with dual-channel operation and a listed memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. The i3-4130 uses DDR3, also dual-channel, but no bandwidth figure is provided. The newer memory standard gives the Celeron a theoretical bandwidth advantage, though Cinebench scores suggest it does not translate into a measurable win.

Integrated graphics differ as well: the Celeron ships with UHD Graphics 24EU, while the i3-4130 has Intel HD 4400. Both are entry-level iGPUs, but their specific performance is not captured in the provided data. The Celeron's PCIe implementation is Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only), whereas the i3-4130 lists simply "Gen 3" without lane count.

FAQ

Q: Why does the Core i3-4130 win all five benchmarks if the Celeron N5100 has more cores?

A: The i3-4130 uses Hyper-Threading to reach four threads on two physical cores, matching the Celeron's four threads. More importantly, its fixed 3.40 GHz clock is substantially higher than the Celeron's 1.10 GHz base and 2.80 GHz boost. The benchmark deltas range from 0.8% to 1.2%, indicating the Celeron's newer Tremont architecture nearly compensates for the clock deficit, but not quite.

Q: What does the 26th percentile mean for both processors?

A: Both the Celeron N5100 and the Core i3-4130 sit at the 26th percentile among all CPUs in the database. This places them in the lower-middle tier of overall performance, meaning they outperform roughly a quarter of all tracked processors while trailing the majority. Their average benchmark scores, 966 for the Celeron and 975 for the i3, confirm they are near-identical in aggregate performance.

Q: How does the Celeron N5100's cache compare to the Core i3-4130's?

A: The Celeron N5100 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1.5 MB of shared L2, and 4 MB of shared L3. The i3-4130 also has 64 KB of L1 per core, but only 256 KB of L2 per core and 3 MB of shared L3. The Celeron's larger shared L2 and L3 likely help mitigate its lower clock speeds in multi-threaded workloads.

Q: Which chip supports faster memory?

A: The Celeron N5100 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 with dual-channel operation and a listed bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. The Core i3-4130 supports DDR3 with dual-channel operation, but no bandwidth figure is provided. The Celeron's newer memory standard offers a theoretical bandwidth advantage, though benchmark results do not show it translating into a performance win.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Both the Celeron N5100 and the Core i3-4130 have multiplierUnlocked set to false, meaning neither can be overclocked by adjusting the clock multiplier. The i3-4130 also lacks a boost clock, so its 3.40 GHz is the maximum sustained frequency.

Q: What is the production status of each chip?

A: The Celeron N5100 is listed as end-of-life, while the Core i3-4130 is listed as active. The i3-4130 also has a release date of 2013-08-31, whereas no release date is provided for the Celeron. Despite the i3 being older, it remains in production status, while the newer Celeron has been discontinued.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Celeron N5100 | Intel Core i3-4130 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base clock | 1.10 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost clock | 2.80 GHz | None |

| TDP | 6 W | 54 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1338 | Intel Socket 1150 |

| Architecture | Tremont | Haswell |

| Codename | Jasper Lake | Haswell |

| Process node | 10 nm | 22 nm |

| Die size | 63.8 mm² | 177 mm² |

| Transistors | Not provided | 1,400 million |

| L2 cache | 1.5 MB (shared) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 3 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, LPDDR4 | DDR3 |

| Memory bandwidth | 46.9 GB/s | Not provided |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3 |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 24EU | Intel HD 4400 |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Production status | End-of-life | Active |

| Part number | SRKGZ | SR1NP |

The Verdict

The data points to a surprising conclusion: these two processors are effectively interchangeable in raw compute performance, despite representing vastly different eras, power envelopes, and market segments. The Core i3-4130 wins every benchmark, but by margins of 1% or less. The Celeron N5100's 6 W TDP against the i3's 54 W is a 9x difference, yet the performance gap is nearly invisible in Cinebench results. This suggests the Celeron's Tremont architecture and newer 10 nm process deliver exceptional efficiency per watt, while the i3's Haswell design relies on brute clock speed.

For a buyer choosing between these two today, the decision hinges on factors outside pure CPU throughput. The Celeron N5100's mobile socket (BGA 1338) and end-of-life status make it a non-upgradeable, low-power solution suited for embedded or compact builds. The i3-4130's desktop socket (Socket 1150), active production status, and higher TDP indicate a more traditional, upgradeable platform, though its DDR3 memory support is dated. The i3's 3 MB of L3 versus the Celeron's 4 MB is a minor edge for the newer chip, but it does not overcome the i3's clock advantage.

The average benchmark scores tell the real story: 975 for the i3-4130, 966 for the Celeron N5100. That 0.9% difference is within run-to-run variance on most systems. Both sit at the 26th percentile, both have four threads, and neither supports ECC memory or unlocked multipliers. The verdict is not about which is faster, it is about which platform fits the use case.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core i3-4130 wins in: Every single Cinebench test, including multi-core and single-core variants. Its fixed 3.40 GHz clock delivers consistent performance without boost variability. The i3 also wins on transistor count (1,400 million versus unspecified for the Celeron) and die size (177 mm² versus 63.8 mm²), which historically correlates with more robust memory controllers and I/O. For users on a Socket 1150 platform with DDR3 already in hand, the i3-4130 offers active production status and a straightforward desktop upgrade path.

Intel Celeron N5100 wins in: Power efficiency by a massive margin, 6 W TDP versus 54 W for the i3-4130. The Celeron also has more L2 cache (1.5 MB shared versus 256 KB per core) and more L3 cache (4 MB versus 3 MB). Its 10 nm process node gives it a generational manufacturing advantage, and its support for DDR4/LPDDR4 with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth outpaces the i3's DDR3, for which no bandwidth figure is listed. The Celeron's smaller die size (63.8 mm² versus 177 mm²) suggests lower production costs and better thermal characteristics, making it the logical choice for fanless or ultra-compact designs.

The split: If the workload is sustained multi-threaded rendering, the i3-4130's 3.40 GHz clock and Hyper-Threading give it a narrow but consistent edge, 0.8% in R20 and R23 multi-core. If the priority is maximum performance per watt or minimal heat output, the Celeron N5100's 6 W envelope and 10 nm efficiency make it the clear winner, even though it trails by 1% or less in every test. The data does not support a decisive victory for either chip in absolute performance; it supports a platform-based decision where power budget and socket compatibility dominate the analysis.