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 N4120 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£95PassMark benchmark result:2457N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:2.6 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1090TDP (Thermal design power):6 W

Intel Celeron N4120 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.2

Overall score

Score
3.2/ 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 99% of models
Score components

90%

3.2

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 99% of processors
3.2

Technical score

Technical score
3.2/ 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 99% of models
Score components

60%

1.9

Performance

18%

4.4

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 99% 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~ £95

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 N4120

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

60%

1.9

Performance

18%

4.4

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated Graphics

3.2
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 N4120 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
5.2/ 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 97% of models
Score components:

60%

3.2

Overall score

40%

10

Price

5.2
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
4
N. of physical cores
4
â–¼ 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
â–¼ 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
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
4x 1.1 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.1 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.1 GHz which is lower than that of 91.5% 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
224 KB
L1 cache
224 KB
â–¼ 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/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.
Intel UHD Graphics 600
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), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
â–² Better than 69% of models
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 68.6% of processors and equal to 0.2% 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)
6 W
Boost power (PL2)
6 W
★ Better than 98% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 6 W which is lower than that of 98.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% 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
no
Configurable TDP
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Celeron N4120 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 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
  • 90% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    6 W vs 60 W
  • 2x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–² 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
  • 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
  • 2.63x cheaper
    Intel Celeron N4120 is cheaper than the average processor (£95 vs £250).
    £95 vs £250
  • 2.63x cheaper
    Intel Celeron N4120 is cheaper than the average processor (£95 vs £250).
    £95 vs £250
  • 2x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–² 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
    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
  • 90% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    6 W
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    6 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
  • 84.1% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    766
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (766 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    766 vs 4,829
  • 76.8% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,457
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,457 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,457 vs 10,572.5
  • 57.3% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,067
    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 (1,067 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,067 vs 2,500
  • 78.2% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    320
    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 (320 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    320 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
  • 85.4% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    407
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (407 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    407 vs 2,791
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Gemini Lake Refresh
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Gemini Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
    Gemini Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.3% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    165
    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 (165 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    165 vs 489
  • 26% worse value for money
    Intel Celeron N4120 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.21 vs 6.6).
    5.21 vs 6.56
  • 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
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AES, SHA, RDRAND, RDSEED
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AES, SHA, RDRAND, RDSEED 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, AES, SHA, RDRAND, RDSEED vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 76.8% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,457
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,457 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,457 vs 10,572.5
  • 84.1% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    766
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (766 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    766 vs 4,829
  • 57.3% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,067
    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 (1,067 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,067 vs 2,500
  • 78.2% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    320
    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 (320 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    320 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
  • 85.4% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    407
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (407 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    407 vs 2,791
  • 66.3% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    165
    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 (165 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    165 vs 489
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ 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
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 1.1 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ 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
  • 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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Gemini Lake Refresh
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Gemini Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
    Gemini Lake Refresh 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
  • 41.7% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    224 KB
    â–¼ 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
    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
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
    â–² Better than 69% of models
    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)).
    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)
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ 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
    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

7.0
ALLCHECKOUT
≈ estimated
14/02/2022
Hands-on review · Windows 11 performance and app tests
Verdict
Intel Celeron N4120 has a solid build and handles light work, but the J4125 is the better choice for smoother all-day use.
9.0
DreadTech
≈ estimated
04/08/2024
First look · unboxing and first impressions
Verdict
Intel Celeron N4120 is recommended for its storage, ports and price, based on a quick first look.
Not graded
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Celeron N4120

  • Excellent value for money in budget laptops and mini-PCs
  • Highly energy efficient with a low 6W TDP, leading to long battery life
  • Low heat generation allows for silent, fanless device designs
  • Reliable performance for basic tasks like web browsing, office work, and student use
  • Hardware support for 4K video playback (VP9 and H.265 decoding)
  • Four physical cores provide a noticeable improvement over dual-core Celeron models

What we don't like about Intel Celeron N4120

  • Poor multitasking performance when handling several open browser tabs or background apps
  • Unsuitable for modern, demanding video games (struggles with anything beyond Minecraft or simple older titles)
  • Significant performance lag when running Windows 11 compared to lighter OS options
  • Struggles with resource-heavy workloads like video editing or modern AI applications
  • Limited upgrade potential as it is often paired with soldered (non-upgradable) RAM
  • Noticeable slowdowns or 'saturation' during initial application loading

Verdict

The Intel Celeron N4120 is a quad-core, four-thread processor. It is part of the Gemini Lake Refresh family. It has a base clock speed of 1.10 GHz and a burst frequency up to 2.60 GHz. Built on a 14nm process, it includes 4 MB of L2 cache and integrated Intel UHD Graphics 600. It supports 4K video at 60Hz. Its advantages include a low 6W Thermal Design Power (TDP). This enables energy-efficient designs and long battery life in budget laptops and Chromebooks. However, it is not suitable for heavy multitasking, gaming, or video editing. It struggles with modern, demanding applications due to slow core performance and a lack of hyper-threading.

Compare Intel Celeron N4120 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 N4120 and other processors

No results found