CPU Comparison

The Intel Celeron N5105 and Intel Core i7-5500U represent two very different approaches to mobile computing, separated by architecture generations and design philosophies. The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split: the Celeron N5105 dominates in Cinebench rendering workloads while the Core i7-5500U takes a clear lead in Geekbench tests. Both processors sit at the 25th percentile of all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 955 for the N5105 and 953 for the i7-5500U, making them statistical peers in overall performance. This near-identical average score, however, masks significant differences in how each processor handles specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Celeron N5105 delivers its most decisive victories in the Cinebench suite, where it outperforms the Core i7-5500U by a remarkably consistent margin across all five tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the N5105 scores 341 against the i7-5500U's 240, a 42.1% advantage. This pattern repeats almost identically in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the N5105's 1422 score eclipses the i7-5500U's 1000 by 42.2%. The single-core results are equally lopsided: the N5105 posts 200 in Cinebench R20 single-core versus 141 for the i7-5500U, a 41.8% lead, and 478 versus 336 in Cinebench R23 single-core, a 42.3% gap. The Cinebench R23 multicore test shows the same 42.3% delta, with scores of 3388 and 2381 respectively.

These consistent deltas suggest a fundamental architectural efficiency advantage for the Tremont-based Celeron in rendering workloads, rather than a simple clock speed or core count benefit. The i7-5500U, despite its higher base clock of 2.40 GHz and boost clock of 3.00 GHz compared to the N5105's 2.00 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost, cannot match the newer architecture's per-clock output in these tests. The Celeron's 4 physical cores versus the i7-5500U's 2 cores likely contributes to the multicore results, but the single-core Cinebench wins indicate that the Tremont architecture itself is more efficient at this specific workload.

The tables turn dramatically in Geekbench, where the Core i7-5500U asserts its superiority. In Geekbench multicore, the i7-5500U scores 1689 against the N5105's 1189, a 29.6% advantage. The Geekbench single-core test shows an even larger gap: 881 for the i7-5500U versus 516 for the N5105, a 41.4% lead. These results suggest that Geekbench's workload mix favors the Broadwell architecture's execution resources, memory subsystem, or perhaps its higher operating frequencies in burst scenarios. The i7-5500U's 4 MB shared L3 cache matches the N5105's 4 MB, but the Broadwell chip pairs it with 256 KB L2 per core versus the Celeron's 1.5 MB shared L2, a configuration that may benefit certain memory access patterns.

The overall win count stands at 5 for the N5105 and 2 for the i7-5500U across the seven head-to-head tests, but this tally does not capture the magnitude of the Geekbench losses for the Celeron. The 41.4% deficit in Geekbench single-core represents the largest single margin in either direction, indicating that the i7-5500U has a clear area of dominance that the Cinebench results cannot offset in real-world mixed workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from starkly different eras and design philosophies. The Celeron N5105 uses the Tremont architecture on the Jasper Lake platform, built on a 10 nm process node from Intel. It features 4 cores and 4 threads, with a 10 W TDP and a die size of 63.8 mm². The Core i7-5500U, in contrast, uses the Broadwell architecture on the Broadwell-U platform, fabricated on a 14 nm process with 1,300 million transistors and a larger 82 mm² die. The i7-5500U offers 2 cores and 4 threads with Hyper-Threading, running at a 15 W TDP.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially between the two. The N5105 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.5 MB of shared L2 cache, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The i7-5500U also has 64 KB L1 per core but doubles the per-core L2 to 256 KB, while sharing the same 4 MB L3. The Celeron's larger shared L2 pool may benefit multi-core workloads that access common data, while the i7-5500U's per-core L2 allocation could reduce contention in single-threaded scenarios.

Memory support marks another major divergence. The N5105 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration, delivering 46.9 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The i7-5500U is limited to DDR3, also dual-channel, but with a substantially lower 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. This near-doubling of memory bandwidth for the Celeron likely contributes to its Cinebench dominance, as rendering workloads are often memory-bandwidth-sensitive. The PCIe capabilities differ as well: the N5105 provides Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes, while the i7-5500U offers Gen 2 with 12 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differentiate the pair, with the N5105 featuring UHD Graphics with 24 execution units and the i7-5500U carrying Intel HD 5500. Both processors are end-of-life, use non-unlockable multipliers, and are designed for mobile sockets: BGA 1338 for the N5105 and BGA 1168 for the i7-5500U. The i7-5500U carries a launch MSRP of $393 and a release date of February 28, 2015, while the N5105 has no listed launch MSRP or release date in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The Celeron N5105 is the clear choice for sustained compute workloads that resemble Cinebench's rendering tasks. Its 42.1% to 42.3% advantages across all Cinebench tests, including single-core variants, indicate that applications leveraging similar instruction patterns and memory access behaviors will see substantial performance gains. The 4 physical cores provide genuine multi-threaded throughput, and the 46.9 GB/s memory bandwidth ensures that data-hungry workloads have adequate feeding. The 10 W TDP also suggests efficiency advantages for thermally constrained mobile devices, though the data does not include power consumption benchmarks.

The Core i7-5500U wins in Geekbench-style workloads, which tend to reflect more diverse, real-world application patterns including cryptography, compression, and image processing. The 29.6% multicore and 41.4% single-core Geekbench leads demonstrate that Broadwell's execution engine, despite its age and lower core count, handles these mixed instruction streams more effectively. The higher clock speeds of 2.40 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost, combined with 256 KB L2 per core, likely drive these wins. For users running applications that resemble Geekbench's workload mix, the i7-5500U provides meaningfully better responsiveness.

The average benchmark scores tell a story of overall parity: 955 for the N5105 and 953 for the i7-5500U, a mere 0.2% difference. Both processors land at the 25th percentile of all CPUs, and their nearest rival lists are nearly identical, featuring Intel Xeon W3570, Intel Xeon W3550, AMD Athlon X4 870K, and Intel Core i7-950. The N5105 matches the Xeon W3570's 955 average score exactly with a 0% delta, while the i7-5500U trails it by 0.2%. This near-equivalence in aggregate performance means the choice between them depends entirely on workload profile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance in Cinebench?

A: The Intel Celeron N5105 wins all Cinebench multicore tests, with a 42.1% lead in R15 (341 vs 240) and a 42.2% lead in R20 (1422 vs 1000). The Cinebench R23 multicore result shows the same trend at 3388 vs 2381, a 42.3% advantage.

Q: Does the Core i7-5500U win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the i7-5500U wins both Geekbench tests, scoring 1689 in multicore versus 1189 for the N5105, a 29.6% lead, and 881 in single-core versus 516, a 41.4% advantage.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Celeron N5105 has an average benchmark score of 955, while the Core i7-5500U scores 953. This places both at the 25th percentile of all CPUs, with the N5105 matching the Intel Xeon W3570's 955 score exactly.

Q: What are the core and thread configurations?

A: The Celeron N5105 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Core i7-5500U has 2 cores and 4 threads, with the additional threads coming from its Hyper-Threading capability.

Q: How does memory bandwidth differ between the two?

A: The N5105 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 memory with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the i7-5500U supports DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s. Both use dual-channel configurations.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Celeron N5105 has a 10 W TDP, while the Core i7-5500U has a 15 W TDP. The i7-5500U also carries a launch MSRP of $393.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear workload-based division. The Intel Celeron N5105 is the superior choice for rendering and compute-heavy applications that mirror Cinebench's execution patterns. Its consistent 42% performance advantage across all Cinebench tests, combined with 4 physical cores and double the memory bandwidth at 46.9 GB/s, makes it the stronger option for tasks like 3D rendering, video encoding, and other sustained multi-threaded workloads. The 10 W TDP also positions it as potentially more suitable for fanless or low-power designs, though the data does not include thermal or power measurements.

The Intel Core i7-5500U is the better pick for general-purpose computing that resembles Geekbench workloads. Its 41.4% single-core and 29.6% multicore Geekbench victories indicate superior handling of diverse, latency-sensitive applications. The higher clock speeds and per-core L2 cache configuration benefit bursty workloads, making it potentially more responsive for everyday tasks like web browsing, office applications, and light content creation. The 15 W TDP and DDR3 memory support suggest an older platform, but the performance in these tests remains competitive.

For users who know their primary applications fall into the Cinebench category, the N5105 offers decisive advantages that no other benchmark in the data contradicts. For users whose workloads resemble Geekbench's mix, the i7-5500U provides similarly decisive benefits. Given the near-identical average scores and 25th percentile ranking for both, neither processor offers a universal performance win. The choice hinges entirely on matching the processor to the workload, with the N5105's 5 benchmark wins against the i7-5500U's 2 wins reflecting the broader Cinebench representation in the test suite, not an overall performance superiority.