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 N4500 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£160PassMark benchmark result:1790N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.8 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1338TDP (Thermal design power):6 W

Intel Celeron N4500 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.8

Overall score

Score
3.8/ 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 92% of models
Score components

90%

3.8

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▼Worse than 92% of processors
3.8

Technical score

Technical score
3.8/ 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 91% of models
Score components

60%

2.4

Performance

18%

6.1

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated Graphics

▼Worse than 91% 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~ £160

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 N4500

Technical score
Technical score
3.8/ 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 91% of models
Score components:

60%

2.4

Performance

18%

6.1

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated Graphics

3.8
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 N4500 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%

3.8

Overall score

40%

9.7

Price

5.6
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
▼ 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
FCBGA1338
CPU socket
FCBGA1338
▼ Worse than 92% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1338 CPU socket, which is older than that of 91.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% 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
2
N. of physical cores
2
▼ 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
▼ 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
▼ 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
2.8 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
2.8 GHz
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.8 GHz which is lower than that of 94.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.1 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.1 GHz
▼ 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
10 nm
Semiconductor size
10 nm
▲ Better than 52% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 52.4% of processors and equal to that of 19.1% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 10 nm
Foundry
Intel 10 nm
▲ Better than 52% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 10 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 52.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
L3 cache
4 MB
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 70.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.6% of processors.
L2 cache
1.5 MB
L2 cache
1.5 MB
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1.5 MB which is smaller than that of 62.2% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
L1 cache
?
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4X
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4X
▲ Better than 63% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4X, which is newer than that of 63.4% of processors and equal to that of 3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
▼ Worse than 48% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,933 MHz, which is higher than that of 46.6% of processors and equal to 5.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
▼ Worse than 92% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 91.7% of processors and equal to 6.4% 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.
Intel UHD Graphics
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics
▼ Worse than 63% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 63.4% of processors and equal to that in 1.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
16
Integrated GPU execution units
16
▼ Worse than 56% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 16 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 56.4% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
▲ Better than 42% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.3% of processors and equal to that of 26.1% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
▲ Better than 85% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 85% of processors and equal to 5.6% 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)
20 W
Boost power (PL2)
20 W
★ Better than 92% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 20 W which is lower than that of 91.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% 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 N4500 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
  • 64% smaller die size
    Die size
    63.8 mm²
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (63.8 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    63.8 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.7% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    20 W
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (20 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    20 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
    ▲ 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
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Jasper Lake
    ▲ Better than 54% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Jasper Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Jasper Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR4X
    ▲ Better than 63% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • 64% smaller die size
    Die size
    63.8 mm²
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (63.8 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    63.8 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Jasper Lake
    ▲ Better than 54% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Jasper Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Jasper Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 10 nm
    ▲ Better than 52% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 10 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 10 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    ▲ Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 16.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    10 nm
    ▲ Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (10 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    10 nm vs 12 nm
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR4X
    ▲ Better than 63% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X 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
  • 66.7% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    20 W
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (20 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    20 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
    ▲ 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
  • 83.1% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    1,790
    ▼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,790 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,790 vs 10,572.5
  • 85.3% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    711
    ▼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (711 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    711 vs 4,829
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    ▼ 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
  • 71.2% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    424
    ▼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (424 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    424 vs 1,471
  • 49.1% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,272
    ▼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,272 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,272 vs 2,500
  • 34.9% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.8 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 59.7% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    197
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (197 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    197 vs 489
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    2
    ▼ 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
  • 17.8% worse value for money
    Intel Celeron N4500 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.57 vs 6.6).
    5.57 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, AES, SHA
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1338
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1338 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1338 vs FP4
  • 83.1% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    1,790
    ▼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,790 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,790 vs 10,572.5
  • 85.3% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    711
    ▼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (711 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    711 vs 4,829
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    ▼ 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
  • 71.2% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    424
    ▼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (424 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    424 vs 1,471
  • 49.1% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,272
    ▼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,272 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,272 vs 2,500
  • 34.9% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.8 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 59.7% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    197
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (197 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    197 vs 489
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    2
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 50% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    4 GT/s
    ▼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 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
  • 17 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    11
    ▼ 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
  • No Turbo Boost
    Turbo Boost version
    no
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor does not support Turbo Boost, the average processor does. 88.6% of processors support Turbo Boost.
  • 85.3% weaker overclocked performance
    PassMark overclocked benchmark result
    2048
    ▼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <5.1k – >55k
    This processor has a lower overclocked performance than the average processor (2048 vs 13,911). The average processor scores 13,911 in overclocked PassMark.
    2,048 vs 13,911
  • 40% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1.5 MB
    ▼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 50% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    4 MB
    ▼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    4 MB vs 8 MB
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    8
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • 75% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    16 GB
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x4
    ▼ Worse than 90% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • 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

E
edc.intel.com
22/10/2026
Summary of the review
Intel® Celeron® Processors - 2 | Performance Index
B
browser.geekbench.com
01/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron N4500 Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser
N
notebookcheck.com
01/07/2023
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron N4500 vs Intel Core i3-7167U vs Intel Core i5-7300U - Benchmarks, Tests and Comparisons
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
22/10/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron N4500 | LaptopMedia - Specifications and Tests
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
14/10/2022
Summary of the review
Lenovo IdeaPad 1 (15", 2022) review | LaptopMedia
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
20/04/2022
Summary of the review
Lenovo V15 Gen 2 review: your bank account will love it
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Celeron N4500

  • Affordable entry-level pricing for budget laptops and Chromebooks
  • Highly energy-efficient with a low 6W TDP, allowing for long battery life
  • Fanless design enables completely silent operation in many devices
  • Sufficient performance for basic tasks like web browsing, emails, and word processing
  • Capable of smooth 1080p video playback and light streaming
  • Low heat output even under sustained basic workloads

What we don't like about Intel Celeron N4500

  • Struggles significantly with heavy multitasking and modern web-heavy applications
  • Poor performance for gaming beyond very old or simple 2D titles
  • Noticeable lag or 'sluggishness' when running Windows 11 without optimization
  • Unsuitable for demanding tasks like video editing, photo editing, or large spreadsheets
  • Only two cores and two threads limit its longevity as software becomes more demanding
  • Often paired with slow eMMC storage and limited RAM in budget devices, further bottlenecking speed

Verdict

The Intel Celeron N4500 is a dual-core mobile processor from the Jasper Lake series, featuring a base clock speed of 1.10 GHz and a burst frequency up to 2.80 GHz. Built on a 10 nm lithography, it includes 4 MB of L3 Smart Cache and an integrated Intel UHD Graphics GPU with 16 execution units, supporting 4K video at 60Hz. Its primary advantages are high energy efficiency with a low 6W TDP, making it ideal for fanless, silent laptops and basic tasks like web browsing or media streaming. However, its main drawbacks include limited multitasking due to having only two threads, no support for Hyper-Threading, and poor performance in demanding applications or modern gaming.

Compare Intel Celeron N4500 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 N4500 and other processors

No results found