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 N4100 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£90PassMark multi-core score:2455N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:2.4 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1090TDP (Thermal design power):6 W

Intel Celeron N4100 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 3 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.7/10

Overall score

Score
4.7/ 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 99% of models
Score components

40%

3.2

Technical score

25%

3.2

Reviews score

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 99% of processors
6.3

Value for money

Value for money
6.3/ 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 93% of models
Score components

70%

4.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 93%
3.2

Technical score

Technical score
3.2/ 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 99% of models
Score components

60%

2.0

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

3.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 99%
3.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.2/ 10
✕
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
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models

3.2

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 99%
?

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.

What reviewers say about the Intel Celeron N4100

Based on 0 · 4

Reviewers are split on storage: some find it enough, while others feel it's too limited.
Mixed views
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Celeron N4100

Technical score
Technical score
3.2/ 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 99% of models
Score components:

60%

2.0

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

3.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

3.2
Reviews score
3.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.3/ 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 93% of models
Score components:

70%

4.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.3
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
FCBGA1090
This processor uses the FCBGA1090 CPU socket, which is older than that of 96.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% 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
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, SHA
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, SHA instruction sets, which is narrower support than 72.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
2.4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.4 GHz which is lower than that of 98.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.1 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.1 GHz which is lower than that of 91.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
2,455
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 2,455 in PassMark, which is lower than 90.8% 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
0 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.9% of processors and equal to that of 6.1% of processors.
L2 cache
4 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 53.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L1 cache
224 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 224 KB which is smaller than that of 78.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4, which is newer than that of 58.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% 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)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
8 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 8 GB of memory, which is less than 98.3% of processors and equal to 1.6% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Intel UHD Graphics 600
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 600
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 600 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 58.4% of processors and equal to that in 0.5% 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
200 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 200 MHz which is lower than that of 96.8% of processors and equal to that of 3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 69.1% of processors and equal to 0.2% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
6 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 6 W which is lower than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
6 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 6 W which is lower than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
6 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 6 W which is lower than that of 98.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Celeron N4100 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 86.7% lower base power
    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
  • 90.6% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    6 W vs 64 W
  • 2x more L2 per 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
  • 33.3% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (118 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    118 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    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 temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • 2.78x cheaper
    Intel Celeron N4100 is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
    £90 vs £250
  • 2.78x cheaper
    Intel Celeron N4100 is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
    £90 vs £250
  • 2x more L2 per 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
  • 33.3% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (118 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    118 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • 86.7% lower base power
    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
  • 90.6% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    6 W vs 64 W
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    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 temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 52.2% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.2/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models

    3.2

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.2 vs 6.7
  • 84.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (822 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    822 vs 5,209
  • 78.6% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,455 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,455 vs 11,469
  • 60.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,001 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,001 vs 2,558
  • 45.5% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 79.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (308 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    308 vs 1,535
  • 94.6% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (152 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    152 vs 2,804.5
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Gemini Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Gemini Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 52.2% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.2/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models

    3.2

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.2 vs 6.7
  • 16.3% worse value for money
    Intel Celeron N4100 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.26 vs 7.3).
    6.26 vs 7.29
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1090 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1090 vs FP5
  • 3 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    December 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 84.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (822 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    822 vs 5,209
  • 78.6% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,455 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,455 vs 11,469
  • 60.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,001 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,001 vs 2,558
  • 45.5% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 79.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (308 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    308 vs 1,535
  • 94.6% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (152 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    152 vs 2,804.5
  • 68.8% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (153 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    153 vs 490
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 17 lower clock multiplier
    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
    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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    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
    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
    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
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (6 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    6 vs 16
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    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
  • 27.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (34.1 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    34.1 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 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
  • 87.5% less memory capacity
    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
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) 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), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) 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
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    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

9.0
ChinnyVision 2
≈ estimated
31/01/2021
Long-term test · a month of studio and office use
Verdict
Intel Celeron N4100 has modest hardware, but it is quiet, stable and excellent value for office, streaming and studio tasks.
6.0
AICvideo
≈ estimated
06/06/2020
Storage upgrade test · value check on an N4100 laptop
Verdict
Intel Celeron N4100 systems feel much faster after a storage upgrade, but the cost is hard to justify.
7.0
Redskull
≈ estimated
15/06/2018
Hands-on review · performance, benchmarks and media tests
Verdict
Intel Celeron N4100 suits light productivity and value-minded buyers, but offers only a small speed gain over the N3450.
5.0
AICvideo
≈ estimated
01/05/2020
Comparison · real-world performance on a budget laptop
Verdict
Intel Celeron N4100 delivers disappointing real-world speed, and slow storage holds back this budget laptop.
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Celeron N4100

  • Excellent energy efficiency with a low 6W TDP, making it ideal for fanless, silent devices
  • Cost-effective 'value for money' choice for budget laptops and entry-level mini PCs
  • Features four physical cores, providing a significant multitasking boost over older dual-core Celeron models like the N4000
  • Capably handles 4K video playback at 30fps thanks to a hardware-accelerated video engine
  • Reliable and stable performance for basic office productivity, email, and lightweight education tasks

What customers don't like about Intel Celeron N4100

  • Strictly entry-level performance that struggles with heavy multitasking or more than a few open browser tabs
  • Terrible for gaming; even popular titles like Minecraft or Fortnite may run poorly with frequent frame skips
  • Slow in sustained workloads as performance is often limited by TDP and cooling in thin devices
  • Real-world performance improvements over dual-core predecessors can be minimal if paired with slow eMMC storage
  • Noticeable lag when switching between applications or editing images in programs like Photoshop Express

Verdict

The Intel Celeron N4100 is an entry-level quad-core processor from the Gemini Lake generation. It has 4 cores, 4 threads, a 1.10 GHz base clock, and a burst frequency up to 2.40 GHz. Built on a 14nm process with a 4MB L2 cache and integrated Intel UHD Graphics 600, its strengths include a low 6W TDP. This allows for fanless, silent designs and efficient 4K video playback (VP9/H.265). It is limited by slow single-thread performance and a maximum memory support of 8GB DDR4-2400. It can be overwhelmed by intensive multitasking or modern demanding applications.

Compare Intel Celeron N4100 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 N4100 and other processors

No results found