OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Celeron 5205U review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£90PassMark multi-core score:1424N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1528TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Celeron 5205U Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.8/10

Overall score

Score
5.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Score components

40%

3.6

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 84% of processors
7.1

Value for money

Value for money
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 66%
3.6

Technical score

Technical score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

60%

2.6

Performance

18%

3.5

Architecture

10%

4.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

6.9

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 96%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £90
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Celeron 5205U

Technical score
Technical score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components:

60%

2.6

Performance

18%

3.5

Architecture

10%

4.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

6.9

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

3.6
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components:

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.1
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1528
This processor uses the FCBGA1528 CPU socket, which is older than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 99.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
2
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94.3% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.9 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.9 GHz which is lower than that of 94.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
1,424
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 1,424 in PassMark, which is lower than 97.6% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% of processors.
L3 cache
2 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 91% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 85.4% of processors and equal to that of 14.5% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to that of 14.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR3
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR3, which is newer than that of 56.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 11.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to 10.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 610
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 610 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 56.4% of processors and equal to that in 1.6% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
12
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 12 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 62.7% of processors and equal to 9.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 66.4% of processors and equal to 1.9% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 79.2% of processors and equal to that of 15.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 15.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
18.75 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 18.75 W which is lower than that of 93.1% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 12.5 W
Show more

Intel Celeron 5205U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 70.7% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (18.8 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    18.75 W vs 64 W
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 43.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (100 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    100 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • 2.78x cheaper
    Intel Celeron 5205U is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
    £90 vs £250
  • 2.78x cheaper
    Intel Celeron 5205U is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
    £90 vs £250
  • 43.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (100 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    100 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • 70.7% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (18.8 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    18.75 W vs 64 W
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 92.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (386 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    386 vs 5,209
  • 87.6% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,424 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,424 vs 11,469
  • 58.2% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,068 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,068 vs 2,558
  • 74.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (386 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    386 vs 1,535
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • 3.2% worse value for money
    Intel Celeron 5205U has worse value for money than the average processor (7.06 vs 7.3).
    7.06 vs 7.29
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1528 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1528 vs FP5
  • 92.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (386 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    386 vs 5,209
  • 87.6% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,424 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,424 vs 11,469
  • 58.2% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,068 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,068 vs 2,558
  • 74.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (386 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    386 vs 1,535
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 9 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (19 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    19 vs 28
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 77.8% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    2 MB vs 9 MB
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    128 KB vs 384 KB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Older PCIe version
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    12 vs 16
  • 25% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 20% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (37.5 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    37.5 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (12 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    12 vs 24

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Celeron 5205U

  • Extremely affordable, making it a common choice for budget-friendly laptops and Chromebooks.
  • Highly energy-efficient with a low 15W TDP, contributing to longer battery life in portable devices.
  • Sufficient for basic 'office-style' tasks like word processing, emails, and light web browsing.
  • Supports modern hardware decoding for 4K video playback (VP9 and H.265).
  • Reliable for specialized, low-demand environments like POS systems or educational terminals.

What customers don't like about Intel Celeron 5205U

  • Lacks Intel Turbo Boost technology, meaning the clock speed is capped at a low 1.9 GHz.
  • Does not support Hyper-Threading (2 cores, 2 threads), leading to poor multitasking performance.
  • Integrated Intel UHD Graphics 610 is insufficient for modern 3D gaming or intensive video editing.
  • Prone to significant slowdowns when multiple browser tabs or background applications are open.
  • Built on an aging 14nm process, making it less efficient and powerful than newer 'N-series' or 'Gold' processors.
  • Frequently paired with limited, non-upgradeable RAM (e.g., 4GB), which acts as a further system bottleneck.

Verdict

The Intel Celeron 5205U is an entry-level dual-core processor from the Comet Lake-U series, featuring 2 cores, 2 threads, and a fixed base frequency of 1.90 GHz with no Turbo Boost support. It includes 2MB of L3 cache, an integrated Intel UHD Graphics 610 (300–900 MHz), and supports up to 64GB of DDR4-2400 or LPDDR3-2133 memory. Main advantages include its low 15W TDP, which allows for energy-efficient operation in thin laptops and Chromebooks, and its affordability for basic tasks like web browsing and office work. However, it suffers from significant performance limitations due to the lack of Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost, making it unsuitable for gaming, multitasking, or intensive applications.

Compare Intel Celeron 5205U with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Celeron 5205U and other processors

No results found