Intel Celeron N5100 vs Intel Core i7-950 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Celeron N5100 records an average benchmark score of 966, while the Intel Core i7-950 records 957. The Celeron N5100 sits 0.1% ahead of the Intel Xeon X5570 (967) and 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U (968) in the nearest rival comparison, while the Core i7-950 is exactly level with the AMD Opteron 4386 (957).

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The Celeron N5100 scores 2809 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 1% higher than the Core i7-950's 2780. This is a narrow margin, roughly a 29-point difference out of nearly 2800.

Q: Does the Core i7-950 have more threads?

A: Yes, the Core i7-950 has 8 threads from 4 cores, while the Celeron N5100 has 4 threads from 4 cores. Despite the Core i7-950 having twice the thread count, the benchmark results show the Celeron winning all recorded multi-core tests.

Q: What is the difference in single-core performance?

A: The Celeron N5100 wins the Cinebench R20 single-core test with 166 points versus 164 for the Core i7-950, a 1.2% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Celeron scores 396 versus 392, a 1% lead.

Q: What process node does each processor use?

A: The Celeron N5100 uses Intel's 10 nm process, while the Core i7-950 uses the 45 nm process. The Core i7-950 has 731 million transistors and a die size of 263 mm², while the Celeron N5100 has a die size of 63.8 mm².

Q: Which processor has a higher thermal design power (TDP)?

A: The Core i7-950 has a TDP of 130, while the Celeron N5100 has a TDP of 6. This is a substantial difference in power characteristics, with the Celeron designed for far lower power envelopes.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data shows a clean sweep: the Intel Celeron N5100 wins all five head-to-head tests. The margins are consistent but small. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Celeron scores 282 against 280, a 0.7% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 1179 against 1167, a 1% lead. Single-core tests follow the same pattern: Cinebench R20 single-core shows 166 versus 164 (1.2% ahead), and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 396 versus 392 (1% ahead).

The Core i7-950 does not win a single recorded test. Its closest moment comes in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it trails by only 2 points. The data implies that for pure compute workloads measured by Cinebench, the newer Tremont architecture in the Celeron N5100 compensates for the Core i7-950's higher clock speeds and additional threads.

Where the Core i7-950 might still find relevance is in its platform characteristics, not its benchmark scores. It has triple-channel memory support, while the Celeron uses dual-channel. It offers 8 MB of shared L3 cache versus 4 MB on the Celeron. These differences do not translate into Cinebench wins, but they indicate different design priorities. The Celeron N5100 wins every measured compute benchmark, while the Core i7-950 retains advantages in raw cache capacity and memory channel configuration.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different eras of Intel design. The Celeron N5100 uses the Tremont architecture, part of the Jasper Lake codename family, built on a 10 nm process. The Core i7-950 uses the Nehalem architecture, codename Bloomfield, built on a 45 nm process. The Core i7-950 contains 731 million transistors across a 263 mm² die, while the Celeron N5100 fits into a 63.8 mm² die.

Cache hierarchies differ sharply. The Celeron N5100 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1.5 MB of shared L2, and 4 MB of shared L3. The Core i7-950 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Core i7-950 has double the L3 cache and a per-core L2 design, while the Celeron uses a shared L2 pool.

Threading is another fundamental split. The Core i7-950 supports 8 threads across 4 cores, meaning each core can handle two threads. The Celeron N5100 has 4 threads across 4 cores, with no simultaneous multithreading. Despite this, the Celeron wins every recorded multi-core benchmark, which suggests the architectural efficiency of Tremont over Nehalem is significant enough to overcome a 2x thread deficit.

The integrated graphics situation also separates them. The Celeron N5100 includes UHD Graphics 24EU, while the Core i7-950 has no integrated graphics listed. The Celeron uses Intel BGA 1338 socket, while the Core i7-950 uses Intel Socket 1366. PCIe support differs as well: the Celeron provides Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i7-950 lists Gen 2 without a lane count.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors according to the database:

• Cores: Both have 4, no difference.
• Threads: Celeron N5100 has 4, Core i7-950 has 8.
• Base clock: Celeron N5100 at 1100.00, Core i7-950 at 3.07.
• Boost clock: Celeron N5100 at 2.80, Core i7-950 at 3.33.
• TDP: Celeron N5100 at 6, Core i7-950 at 130.
• Socket: Celeron N5100 uses Intel BGA 1338, Core i7-950 uses Intel Socket 1366.
• Architecture: Tremont versus Nehalem.
• Process node: 10 nm versus 45 nm.
• Transistors: Not listed for Celeron, 731 million for Core i7-950.
• Die size: 63.8 mm² versus 263 mm².
• L2 cache: 1.5 MB shared versus 256 KB per core.
• L3 cache: 4 MB shared versus 8 MB shared.
• Memory support: DDR4/LPDDR4 versus DDR3.
• Memory bus: Dual-channel versus triple-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: 46.9 GB/s for Celeron, not listed for Core i7-950.
• PCIe: Gen 3, 8 lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 2.
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 24EU versus none listed.
• Market segment: Mobile versus Desktop.
• Part number: SRKGZ versus SLBEN.

Both processors are end-of-life in production status, neither has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory. The Celeron N5100's launch MSRP is not recorded in the database, and neither is the Core i7-950's.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records five direct comparisons between these two processors, all in Cinebench tests. The Celeron N5100 takes all five, but the margins tell a story of near parity rather than dominance.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Celeron scores 282 against 280 for the Core i7-950. That is a 0.7% difference, essentially a tie within run-to-run variance. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Celeron scores 1179 against 1167, a 1% lead. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23 multi-core: 2809 versus 2780, again 1% ahead.

Single-core results mirror the multi-core picture. Cinebench R20 single-core gives the Celeron 166 points and the Core i7-950 164 points, a 1.2% margin. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 396 versus 392, a 1% lead. The largest single margin across all tests is just 1.2%, which happens in Cinebench R20 single-core.

What makes these results notable is the context. The Core i7-950 runs at a base clock of 3.07 and boosts to 3.33, while the Celeron N5100 sits at a 1100.00 base clock and boosts to 2.80. The Core i7-950 also has 8 threads and 8 MB of L3 cache. The Celeron N5100 counters with a 10 nm process, 4 MB of L3, and a 6 TDP. The benchmarks show the modern low-power design matching or slightly beating the older high-power desktop part across the board.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this. The Celeron N5100 records an average of 966, placing it between the Intel Xeon X5570 (967, delta -0.1%) and the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T (963, delta 0.3%). The Core i7-950 records 957, matching the AMD Opteron 4386 (957, delta 0%) and sitting just above the AMD Athlon X4 870K (956, delta 0.1%). Both processors land at the 26th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow winner. The Intel Celeron N5100 wins every recorded benchmark, making it the better choice for anyone whose primary concern is Cinebench-style compute performance. The margins are small, ranging from 0.7% to 1.2%, but they are consistent across both single-core and multi-core tests.

For buyers focused on power efficiency, the choice is even more obvious. The Celeron N5100 has a TDP of 6, while the Core i7-950 has a TDP of 130. That is a massive difference in thermal and power requirements. The Celeron also comes with integrated graphics, while the Core i7-950 has none listed. The Celeron supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 memory, while the Core i7-950 is limited to DDR3.

The Core i7-950 still has arguments in its favor from the specification sheet. It offers 8 threads, 8 MB of L3 cache, and triple-channel memory support. It has a higher boost clock at 3.33 versus 2.80. None of these advantages show up in the recorded benchmarks, however. The Celeron N5100 matches or beats it in every measured test.

Who should pick the Core i7-950? Perhaps someone with existing Socket 1366 hardware or DDR3 memory, since the platform compatibility may matter more than raw scores. Who should pick the Celeron N5100? Anyone looking at the benchmark data alone, because it wins all five head-to-head tests, has a far lower TDP, includes integrated graphics, and uses a more modern process node. The verdict from the recorded measurements is unambiguous: the Celeron N5100 outperforms the Core i7-950 in every Cinebench test the database has recorded, despite the Core i7-950's higher clocks and additional threads.