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 N4000 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£90PassMark benchmark result:1431N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.6 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1090TDP (Thermal design power):6 W

Intel Celeron N4000 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.4

Overall score

Score
3.4/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components

90%

3.4

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 97% of processors
3.4

Technical score

Technical score
3.4/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

60%

2.3

Performance

18%

4.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.8

Power & Thermal

4%

6.7

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 96% 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ 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 N4000

Technical score
Technical score
3.4/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components:

60%

2.3

Performance

18%

4.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.8

Power & Thermal

4%

6.7

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated Graphics

3.4
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Celeron N4000 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
5.4/ 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 94% of models
Score components:

60%

3.4

Overall score

40%

10

Price

5.4
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1090
CPU socket
FCBGA1090
â–¼ 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
â–² 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
2
N. of physical cores
2
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% of processors.
CPU threads
2
CPU threads
2
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94% of processors and equal to 5.9% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
â–¼ 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
2.6 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
2.6 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.6 GHz which is lower than that of 96.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.1 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.1 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.1 GHz which is lower than that of 98.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
â–¼ 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
â–¼ 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
â–¼ 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
â–² 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
112 KB
L1 cache
112 KB
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 112 KB which is smaller than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4
â–² Better than 60% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4, which is newer than that of 60.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
â–¼ 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)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
8 GB
Maximum memory capacity
8 GB
â–¼ 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
â–² 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
â–¼ 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
â–¼ 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
200 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
200 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 200 MHz which is lower than that of 96.7% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode)
â–² Better than 76% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 76.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
6 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
6 W
★ Better than 97% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 6 W which is lower than that of 97% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
6 W
Base power (PL1)
6 W
★ Better than 97% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 6 W which is lower than that of 96.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
15 W
Boost power (PL2)
15 W
★ Better than 93% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 15 W which is lower than that of 93.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
â–¼ 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
?
Show more

Intel Celeron N4000 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    2 MB/core
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 86.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 99% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    771.41
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (771.4 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    771.41 vs 387.66
  • 75% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    15 W
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    15 W vs 60 W
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² 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
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR4
    â–² Better than 60% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • 60% larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    4 MB
    â–² 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 N4000 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
    â–¼ 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
  • 99% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    771.41
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (771.4 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    771.41 vs 387.66
  • 4x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    2 MB/core
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 60% larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    4 MB
    â–² 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
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR4
    â–² Better than 60% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • 86.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 75% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    15 W
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    15 W vs 60 W
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² 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
  • 93.3% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    322
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (322 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    322 vs 4,829
  • 86.5% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    1,431
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,431 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,431 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 58.6% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,036
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,036 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,036 vs 2,500
  • 78.1% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    322
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (322 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    322 vs 1,471
  • 39.5% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.6 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Gemini Lake
    â–¼ 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
  • 67.3% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    160
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (160 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    160 vs 489
  • 21.2% worse value for money
    Intel Celeron N4000 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.41 vs 6.6).
    5.41 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES 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, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1090
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1090 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1090 vs FP4
  • 3 years older release date
    Release date
    2017
    â–¼ 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
    322
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (322 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    322 vs 4,829
  • 86.5% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    1,431
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,431 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,431 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 58.6% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,036
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,036 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,036 vs 2,500
  • 78.1% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    322
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (322 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    322 vs 1,471
  • 39.5% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.6 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 67.3% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    160
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (160 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    160 vs 489
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    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
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 1.1 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
  • 17 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    11
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (11 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    11 vs 28
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ 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
  • No Turbo Boost
    Turbo Boost version
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor does not support Turbo Boost, the average processor does. 88.6% of processors support Turbo Boost.
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Gemini Lake
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
  • 70.8% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    112 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (112 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    112 KB vs 384 KB
  • 10 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    6
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
  • 18.2% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,400 MHz
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    12
    â–¼ 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
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    â–¼ 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

C
cpubenchmark.net
Ongoing
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron N4000 @ 1.10GHz - CPU Benchmarks
C
cpu.userbenchmark.com
Ongoing
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron N4000 FH8068003067417 - UserBenchmark
B
browser.geekbench.com
Ongoing
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron N4000 Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Celeron N4000

  • Highly affordable; found in budget laptops typically under $300
  • Extremely energy-efficient with a low 6W TDP, leading to long battery life (up to 12-14 hours)
  • Low heat emission allows for silent, fanless laptop designs
  • Adequate for basic tasks like web browsing, emails, and document editing
  • Supports 4K video hardware decoding for smooth Netflix and YouTube streaming
  • Compact and lightweight, ideal for highly portable 'second' laptops or student devices

What we don't like about Intel Celeron N4000

  • Significantly slow performance, even for basic multitasking on Windows 10/11
  • Only 2 physical cores and 2 threads, which limits modern software compatibility
  • Not suitable for gaming; struggles with even low-demand titles like Roblox or Minecraft
  • Inadequate for professional workloads such as video editing, 3D rendering, or heavy coding
  • Frequently paired with slow eMMC storage and non-upgradable (soldered) RAM
  • Noticeable lag and long load times when multiple browser tabs or background apps are open

Verdict

The Intel Celeron N4000 is an entry-level, dual-core processor from the Gemini Lake architecture, manufactured using a 14nm process. It features 2 cores and 2 threads with a base frequency of 1.10 GHz that can burst up to 2.60 GHz, alongside 4 MB of L2 cache and integrated Intel UHD Graphics 600. Its primary advantages include an extremely low Thermal Design Power (TDP) of just 6W, which enables silent, fanless laptop designs and offers excellent energy efficiency for basic productivity tasks like web browsing and word processing. However, its main drawbacks are significant performance limitations in multitasking, a lack of hyper-threading support, and a complete inability to handle demanding workloads such as modern gaming or high-resolution video editing.

Compare Intel Celeron N4000 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 N4000 and other processors

No results found