OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Celeron J4105 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£90PassMark benchmark result:2812N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:2.5 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1090TDP (Thermal design power):10 W

Intel Celeron J4105 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.7

Overall score

Score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components

90%

3.7

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▼Worse than 94% of processors
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

60%

2.9

Performance

18%

4.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated Graphics

▼Worse than 93% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    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 J4105

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components:

60%

2.9

Performance

18%

4.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated Graphics

3.7
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Celeron J4105 has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
5.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components:

60%

3.7

Overall score

40%

10

Price

5.6
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
desktop
Processor type
desktop
▲ Better than 56% of models
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 56% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1090
CPU socket
FCBGA1090
▼ Worse than 97% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1090 CPU socket, which is older than that of 96.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
▲ Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
N. of physical cores
4
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
4
CPU threads
4
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 67.4% of processors and equal to 26.5% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
2.5 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
2.5 GHz
▼ Worse than 98% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.5 GHz which is lower than that of 98% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.5 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.5 GHz
▼ Worse than 83% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.5 GHz which is lower than that of 83.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 33.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
▼ Worse than 55% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.2% of processors and equal to that of 29.3% of processors.
L3 cache
0 MB
L3 cache
0 MB
▼ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.6% of processors and equal to that of 6.4% of processors.
L2 cache
4 MB
L2 cache
4 MB
▲ Better than 55% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 55.4% of processors and equal to that of 9.3% of processors.
L1 cache
224 KB
L1 cache
224 KB
▼ Worse than 78% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 224 KB which is smaller than that of 78.1% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
DDR memory version
DDR4
▼ Worse than 42% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 26.3% of processors and equal to that of 31.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 63% of processors and equal to 12.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
▼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to 11.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
8 GB
Maximum memory capacity
8 GB
▼ Worse than 98% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 8 GB of memory, which is less than 98.2% of processors and equal to 1.7% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
▲ Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 600
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 600
▼ Worse than 60% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 600 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 59.9% of processors and equal to that in 0.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
12
Integrated GPU execution units
12
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 12 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 62.7% of processors and equal to 9.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
250 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
250 MHz
▼ Worse than 96% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 250 MHz which is lower than that of 96.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW de
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
10 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
10 W
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 10 W which is lower than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
10 W
Base power (PL1)
10 W
★ Better than 94% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 10 W which is lower than that of 94.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
10 W
Boost power (PL2)
10 W
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 10 W which is lower than that of 95.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
▼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Celeron J4105 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 77.8% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • 83.3% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    10 W vs 60 W
  • 47.5% smaller die size
    Die size
    93 mm²
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (93 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    93 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    1 MB/core
    ▲ Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 77.8% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • 60% larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    4 MB
    ▲ Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    4 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 2.78x cheaper
    Intel Celeron J4105 is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
    £90 vs £250
  • 2.78x cheaper
    Intel Celeron J4105 is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
    £90 vs £250
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 47.5% smaller die size
    Die size
    93 mm²
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (93 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    93 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    1 MB/core
    ▲ Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 60% larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    4 MB
    ▲ Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    4 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 77.8% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • 83.3% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    10 W vs 60 W
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 77.8% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • 93.3% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    325
    ▼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (325 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    325 vs 4,829
  • 73.4% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,812
    ▼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,812 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,812 vs 10,572.5
  • 57.6% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,060
    ▼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,060 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,060 vs 2,500
  • 77.9% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    325
    ▼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (325 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    325 vs 1,471
  • 41.9% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.5 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Gemini Lake
    ▼ Worse than 93% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Gemini Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Gemini Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    ▼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    ▼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 17% worse value for money
    Intel Celeron J4105 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.61 vs 6.6).
    5.61 vs 6.56
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1090
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1090 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1090 vs FP4
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, FMA3, AES, SHA
    ▼ Worse than 61% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 3 years older release date
    Release date
    2017
    ▼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    December 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • 93.3% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    325
    ▼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (325 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    325 vs 4,829
  • 73.4% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,812
    ▼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,812 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,812 vs 10,572.5
  • 57.6% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,060
    ▼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,060 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,060 vs 2,500
  • 77.9% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    325
    ▼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (325 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    325 vs 1,471
  • 41.9% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.5 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    ▼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    ▼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 1.5 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 83% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    ▼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    5 GT/s
    ▼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 13 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    15
    ▼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (15 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    15 vs 28
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Gemini Lake
    ▼ Worse than 93% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Gemini Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Gemini Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    ▼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 41.7% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    224 KB
    ▼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (224 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    224 KB vs 384 KB
  • 10 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    6
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (6 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    6 vs 16
  • Older PCIe version
    PCIe version
    2.0
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2.0 vs 3.0
  • 87.5% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    8 GB
    ▼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (8 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    8 GB vs 64 GB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x1/x1/x1/x1
    ▼ Worse than 94% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-2400 MHz
    ▼ Worse than 66% of models
    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
  • 18.2% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,400 MHz
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 16.2% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    38.4 GB/s
    ▼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW de
    Category Benchmark
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW de vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW de vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    12
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    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
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    ▼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    ▼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

O
openbenchmarking.org
Q4 2018
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron J4105 Benchmarks, Linux Performance
T
theramblinman.ca
16/04/2018
Summary of the review
Celeron J4105 – First Week Impressions
F
futura-sciences.com
15/04/2021
Summary of the review
Review of the Odyssey Blue J4105 mini-PC at a budget price
(Translated)Show original
C
cachem.fr
29/11/2018
Summary of the review
The QNAP HS-453DX NAS is now available to everyone
(Translated)Show original
C
cachem.fr
01/04/2019
Summary of the review
QNAP HS-453DX Review: The Ultimate NAS?
(Translated)Show original
M
macitynet.it
27/04/2026
Summary of the review
QNAP HS-453DX Review: The Living Room NAS
(Translated)Show original
I
id.nl
29/10/2021
Summary of the review
QNAP TVS-675 review: NAS with a unique processor
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Celeron J4105

  • Ultra-low power consumption (10W TDP), making it ideal for 24/7 home servers or NAS setups.
  • Efficient for basic day-to-day tasks like web browsing, email, and office applications.
  • Surprisingly capable of handling home virtualization and multiple Docker containers.
  • Supports hardware-accelerated video decoding (Intel Quick Sync), useful for media streaming.
  • Affordable entry point for building low-cost, silent mini-PCs or media centers.
  • Good reliability for simple business systems like POS terminals or cash registers.

What we don't like about Intel Celeron J4105

  • Extremely limited processing power; struggles with modern, resource-heavy operating systems like Windows 11.
  • Poor performance for gaming; only suitable for 2D titles or very old 3D games at minimum settings.
  • Not suitable for demanding applications such as video editing, 3D rendering, or CAD software.
  • Limited multitasking capabilities compared to even older Core i3 or i5 processors.
  • Low single-core clock speeds can lead to stuttering in some 4K/60Hz video playback scenarios.
  • Non-upgradable as it is typically soldered directly to the motherboard (BGA).

Verdict

The Intel Celeron J4105 is a quad-core, 14nm desktop SoC from the Gemini Lake family. It has a base clock of 1.5 GHz and a burst frequency up to 2.5 GHz, with 4 MB of L2 cache. The processor has a low 10W TDP, making it suitable for energy-efficient mini-PCs. It features integrated UHD Graphics 600 with 4K support at 60Hz. It also supports dual-channel DDR4/LPDDR4 memory up to 2400 MT/s. The processor's performance is limited to basic tasks. It lacks the power for modern gaming, video editing, or heavy multitasking. It is typically soldered to the motherboard, preventing upgrades.

Compare Intel Celeron J4105 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 J4105 and other processors

No results found