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 N5095 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£120PassMark multi-core score:4008N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:2.9 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1338TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Celeron N5095 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.4/10

Overall score

Score
5.4/ 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 91% of models
Score components

40%

3.5

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

3.5

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 91% of processors
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 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 79% of models
Score components

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

â–¼Worse than 79%
3.5

Technical score

Technical score
3.5/ 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 96% of models
Score components

60%

2.2

Performance

18%

4.9

Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.3

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 96%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

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~ £120
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 N5095

Technical score
Technical score
3.5/ 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 96% of models
Score components:

60%

2.2

Performance

18%

4.9

Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.3

Integrated graphics

3.5
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 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 79% of models
Score components:

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

6.8
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1338
This processor uses the FCBGA1338 CPU socket, which is older than that of 91.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% 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, AVX, AVX2, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 66.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% 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
2.9 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.9 GHz which is lower than that of 94.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.9 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.9 GHz which is lower than that of 63% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
4,008
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 4,008 in PassMark, which is lower than 78% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 19.5% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 10 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 10 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 51.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% of processors.
L2 cache
1.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1.5 MB which is smaller than that of 63.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.5% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4X
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4X, which is newer than that of 61.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,933 MHz, which is lower than that of 50.3% 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
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 92.2% of processors and equal to 6.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Intel UHD Graphics
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 61.7% of processors and equal to that in 1.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
16
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 16 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 56.5% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
450 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 450 MHz which is higher than that of 77.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 79.5% of processors and equal to 3.4% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 79.2% of processors and equal to that of 15.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 15.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
20 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 20 W which is lower than that of 92.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Celeron N5095 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 64% smaller die size
    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
  • 68.8% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (20 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    20 W vs 64 W
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 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
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Jasper Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Jasper Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 2 wider front-end design
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    6 vs 4
  • 64% smaller die size
    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
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Jasper Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Jasper Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • More advanced foundry
    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
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 68.8% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (20 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    20 W vs 64 W
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 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
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 34.1% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 67.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (492 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    492 vs 1,535
  • 41.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,493 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,493 vs 2,558
  • 91.7% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (234 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    234 vs 2,804.5
  • 72.3% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,443 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,443 vs 5,209
  • 65.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,008 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,008 vs 11,469
  • 52.2% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (234 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    234 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
  • 51.4% lower sentiment score
    3.5 vs 7.2
  • 7.5% worse value for money
    Intel Celeron N5095 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.78 vs 7.3).
    6.78 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AES 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, AVX, AVX2, AES 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 (FCBGA1338 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1338 vs FP5
  • 34.1% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 67.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (492 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    492 vs 1,535
  • 41.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,493 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,493 vs 2,558
  • 91.7% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (234 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    234 vs 2,804.5
  • 72.3% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,443 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,443 vs 5,209
  • 65.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,008 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,008 vs 11,469
  • 52.2% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (234 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    234 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
  • 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.
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 31.2% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (234 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    234 vs 340.075
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 8 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (20 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    20 vs 28
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • 50% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • 91.7% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (0.4 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    0.41 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 24% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.4 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.38 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    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
    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
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (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)).
    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)
  • 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

Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Celeron N5095

  • Excellent for basic tasks such as web browsing, word processing, and multimedia streaming (Netflix/YouTube).
  • Great value for money, often found in very affordable budget laptops and mini PCs.
  • Energy efficient with low power consumption, which can lead to better battery life in portable devices.
  • Features a quad-core architecture that handles light multitasking better than older dual-core Celeron models.
  • Capable of driving multiple 4K displays at 60Hz, making it suitable for modern office setups.
  • Reliable for home server use, such as simple Plex 4K transcoding or as a firewall (pfSense/OPNsense).

What customers don't like about Intel Celeron N5095

  • Unsuitable for modern gaming; only very old titles or simple indie games run smoothly at lower resolutions.
  • Lacks support for AVX instructions and AV1 hardware decoding, which can lead to stuttering in high-resolution modern video formats.
  • Struggles with resource-intensive professional software like heavy video editing or complex development environments.
  • Noticeably slower performance compared to newer alternatives like the Intel N100 or AMD Ryzen 7320U.
  • Higher TDP (15W) compared to some other N-series chips makes it less ideal for completely fanless, passively cooled designs.
  • Performance can be heavily bottlenecked if paired with low RAM (less than 8GB) or a slow HDD instead of an SSD.

Verdict

The Intel Celeron N5095 is a quad-core, four-thread processor from the Jasper Lake family, built on a 10nm process with a base frequency of 2.0 GHz and a burst frequency of up to 2.9 GHz. It features 4MB of L3 cache, a 15W TDP, and integrated Intel UHD Graphics with 16 execution units running up to 750 MHz, supporting dual 4K display output at 60Hz. Its main pros include efficient performance for everyday office tasks, web browsing, and 4K media playback, alongside support for modern connectivity like WiFi 6 and PCIe 3.0. However, its main cons include poor suitability for modern gaming, a lack of support for AVX instructions or AV1 hardware decoding, and its non-replaceable, soldered design that limits future hardware upgrades.

Compare Intel Celeron N5095 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 N5095 and other processors

No results found