CPU Comparison
Intel Celeron N5105
Core i7-950
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Celeron N5105 vs Intel Core i7-950
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data tells a decisive story: the Intel Celeron N5105 wins every single head-to-head matchup, taking all five shared Cinebench tests. This is not a marginal victory, the Celeron N5105 leads by roughly 18% across the board. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Celeron N5105 scores 3388 against the Core i7-950’s 2780, a delta of -17.9% from the i7-950’s perspective. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Celeron N5105 posts 1422 versus the i7-950’s 1167, again a -17.9% gap. The single-core results are equally lopsided: the Celeron N5105 scores 200 in Cinebench R20 single-core versus 164 for the i7-950, a -18% difference, and 478 versus 392 in Cinebench R23 single-core, also -18%.
The older i7-950, despite its desktop pedigree and higher thermal envelope, cannot match the newer Celeron N5105 in any measured Cinebench workload. Even in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the oldest shared test, the Celeron N5105 wins 341 to 280, a -17.9% margin. The consistency of the delta across all five tests, hovering between -17.9% and -18%, suggests a fundamental per-clock and per-core efficiency advantage for the Tremont architecture rather than a single workload-specific anomaly. The i7-950’s 130W TDP and 3.07 GHz base clock do not translate into competitive throughput against the Celeron N5105’s 10W TDP and 2.00 GHz base clock. The data shows a clean sweep: five wins for the Celeron N5105, zero for the Core i7-950.
Where Each One Wins
Based strictly on the benchmark results, the Intel Celeron N5105 is the winner in every scenario where these two processors overlap. Its multi-core advantage is consistent: in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Celeron N5105 is 21.9% faster than the i7-950 in terms of raw score (3388 versus 2780). The single-core results reinforce the same conclusion, the Celeron N5105 leads by 21.9% in Cinebench R23 single-core as well (478 versus 392). There is no benchmark in the shared set where the Core i7-950 takes the lead.
That said, the i7-950 does have structural advantages that matter outside the tested workloads. It supports triple-channel DDR3 memory, while the Celeron N5105 uses dual-channel DDR4/LPDDR4. The i7-950 also has a larger L3 cache per core: 8 MB shared across four cores (2 MB per core) versus the Celeron N5105’s 4 MB shared across four cores (1 MB per core). For workloads that are heavily cache-sensitive and not represented in the Cinebench suite, the i7-950’s cache hierarchy could theoretically narrow the gap. However, none of these structural advantages show up in the actual benchmark data, the Celeron N5105 wins every measured test.
The Celeron N5105 also benefits from having integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 24EU), whereas the i7-950 has no integrated graphics listed. For systems that need a display output without a discrete GPU, the Celeron N5105 is the only viable option from the data. The i7-950 also lacks a memory bandwidth figure, while the Celeron N5105 lists 46.9 GB/s. In practical terms, the Celeron N5105 is the superior processor for any workload captured by the benchmark suite, and the i7-950’s only theoretical advantages are in uncached, memory-latency-sensitive, or legacy compatibility scenarios that are not measured here.
The Verdict
The verdict is unambiguous: the Intel Celeron N5105 is the better processor by every benchmark metric in the shared test set. It wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from -17.9% to -18% relative to the Core i7-950. The Celeron N5105 also has a lower TDP (10W versus 130W), a more modern 10 nm process node (versus 45 nm), and a smaller die size (63.8 mm² versus 263 mm²). The i7-950’s 26th percentile ranking among all CPUs is nearly identical to the Celeron N5105’s 25th percentile, but the Celeron N5105 achieves that standing with far less power and newer architecture.
Anyone choosing between these two should select the Celeron N5105 unless they have a specific need for the i7-950’s triple-channel DDR3 memory support or its larger L3 cache. The i7-950’s 8 MB L3 cache versus the Celeron N5105’s 4 MB is a real difference, but it does not manifest in any benchmark win. The Celeron N5105’s 4 cores and 4 threads beat the i7-950’s 4 cores and 8 threads in all tests, which indicates that thread count alone does not compensate for the i7-950’s older Nehalem architecture. The data is clear: pick the Celeron N5105 for performance, efficiency, and modern features. The i7-950 is a relic that cannot compete in any measured workload.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?
A: The Intel Celeron N5105 scores 3388 versus the Intel Core i7-950’s 2780, a 17.9% advantage for the Celeron N5105.
Q: How do the single-core scores compare?
A: The Celeron N5105 wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 478 versus 392 for the i7-950, and Cinebench R20 single-core with 200 versus 164. Both represent an 18% lead for the Celeron N5105.
Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?
A: Both have 4 cores, but the i7-950 has 8 threads (hyper-threading) while the Celeron N5105 has 4 threads. Despite the thread deficit, the Celeron N5105 wins every shared benchmark.
Q: Which processor has a smaller manufacturing process node?
A: The Celeron N5105 is built on a 10 nm process, while the i7-950 uses a 45 nm process. The Celeron N5105 also has a smaller die size at 63.8 mm² versus 263 mm².
Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?
A: No. Both the i7-950 and the Celeron N5105 list ECC memory support as false.
Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?
A: Only the Celeron N5105 has integrated graphics, listed as UHD Graphics 24EU. The i7-950 has no integrated graphics listed.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from vastly different eras and design philosophies. The i7-950 uses the Nehalem architecture on the Bloomfield codename, built on a 45 nm process with 731 million transistors and a 263 mm² die size. It is a desktop part with a 130W TDP, designed for high power draw and sustained throughput on the Intel Socket 1366 platform. The Celeron N5105 uses the Tremont architecture on the Jasper Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process with a 63.8 mm² die size (transistor count not listed). It is a mobile part with a 10W TDP, soldered to Intel BGA 1338.
The cache hierarchies differ significantly. The i7-950 has 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, plus an 8 MB shared L3 cache. The Celeron N5105 also has 64 KB L1 per core but uses a shared 1.5 MB L2 and a 4 MB shared L3 cache. The i7-950’s larger L3 is a legacy advantage, but the Celeron N5105’s lower-latency Tremont design compensates in practice. Memory support diverges as well: the i7-950 uses triple-channel DDR3, while the Celeron N5105 uses dual-channel DDR4 or LPDDR4 with a listed memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. PCIe support also differs: the i7-950 has Gen 2, while the Celeron N5105 has Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Celeron N5105 also integrates UHD Graphics 24EU, a feature absent from the i7-950. Both are end-of-life products, with the i7-950 released in June 2009 and the Celeron N5105 having no listed release date.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ on nearly every core specification. The i7-950 has a base clock of 3.07 GHz and a boost clock of 3.33 GHz, while the Celeron N5105 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz. The i7-950 supports 8 threads, the Celeron N5105 only 4. TDP is a massive differentiator: 130W for the i7-950 versus 10W for the Celeron N5105. The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1366 for the i7-950, Intel BGA 1338 for the Celeron N5105. Process node favors the Celeron N5105 at 10 nm versus 45 nm, and die size favors it as well (63.8 mm² versus 263 mm²). The i7-950 has 731 million transistors; the Celeron N5105’s count is not listed.
Cache differences: the i7-950 has 256 KB L2 per core and 8 MB shared L3, while the Celeron N5105 has 1.5 MB shared L2 and 4 MB shared L3. Both have 64 KB L1 per core. Memory support: the i7-950 uses DDR3 with triple-channel bus, the Celeron N5105 uses DDR4/LPDDR4 with dual-channel bus and a listed bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. PCIe generation differs (Gen 2 versus Gen 3, 8 lanes CPU only). Integrated graphics are present only on the Celeron N5105 (UHD Graphics 24EU). Neither has ECC support, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The i7-950’s part number is SLBEN; the Celeron N5105’s is SRKGV. Both are end-of-life, but only the i7-950 has a release date (June 2009). The average benchmark score is nearly identical (957 for the i7-950, 955 for the Celeron N5105), and both sit in the 25th-26th percentile of all CPUs, yet the Celeron N5105 wins every head-to-head test.