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 N5105 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£150PassMark benchmark result:3989N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:2.9 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1338TDP (Thermal design power):10 W

Intel Celeron N5105 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
Score components

90%

3.4

Technical score

10%

7.7

User score

â–¼Worse than 92% of processors
3.4

Technical score

Technical score
3.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components

60%

2.0

Performance

18%

5.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 97% of processors
7.7

User score

User score
7.7/ 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 93% of models
Score components

70%

10

User ratings

30%

2.4

Number of reviews

Based on 2 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
â–¼Worse than 93% of processors
  • intel-celeron-n5105
  • intel-celeron-n5105
  • intel-celeron-n5105
  • intel-celeron-n5105
  • intel-celeron-n5105
intel-celeron-n5105
intel-celeron-n5105
intel-celeron-n5105
intel-celeron-n5105
intel-celeron-n5105

Best prices

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

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 N5105

Technical score
Technical score
3.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components:

60%

2.0

Performance

18%

5.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated Graphics

3.4
User score
User score
7.7/ 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 93% of models
Score components

70%

10

User ratings

30%

2.4

Number of reviews

Based on 2 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
7.7
Popularity
Popularity
2.4/ 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–² Better than 72% of models
Popularity:
Intel Celeron N5105 has a popularity score of 2.4 points, which is higher than that of 72.2% of products in this category.
2.4
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ 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
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
FCBGA1338
CPU socket
FCBGA1338
â–¼ 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
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
2.9 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
2.9 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.9 GHz which is lower than that of 94% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.0 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.0 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.0 GHz which is lower than that of 73.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Semiconductor size
10 nm
â–² 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
â–² 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
â–¼ 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
â–¼ 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
256 KB
L1 cache
256 KB
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 59.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
DDR memory version
DDR4
â–¼ Worse than 42% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 26.3% of processors and equal to that of 31.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
â–¼ 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)
LPDDR4X-2933 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4X-2933 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4X-2933 MHz, which is lower than that of 57.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
â–¼ 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
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics
â–¼ 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
24
Integrated GPU execution units
24
â–² Better than 49% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.3% of processors and equal to 21.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
450 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
450 MHz
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 450 MHz which is higher than that of 77.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 63.1% of processors and equal to 10.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
10 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
10 W
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 10 W which is lower than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
10 W
Base power (PL1)
10 W
★ Better than 94% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 10 W which is lower than that of 94.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
?
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 N5105 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 77.8% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    10 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
  • 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
  • 77.8% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Jasper Lake
    â–² 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
  • 2.44x more popular
    Intel Celeron N5105 is more popular than the average processor (2.44 vs 1).
    2.44 vs 1
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 10 nm
    â–² 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% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    10 nm
    â–² 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
  • 2.44x more popular
    Intel Celeron N5105 is more popular than the average processor (2.44 vs 1).
    2.44 vs 1
  • 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
    â–² 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
    â–² 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% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    10 nm
    â–² 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
  • 77.8% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    10 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
  • 77.8% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    10 W vs 45 W
  • 68.3% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    467
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (467 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    467 vs 1,471
  • 32.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.9 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 73.8% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,264
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,264 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,264 vs 4,829
  • 40.3% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,493
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,493 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,493 vs 2,500
  • 62.3% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    3,989
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,989 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,989 vs 10,572.5
  • 70.6% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    820
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (820 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    820 vs 2,791
  • 51.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    235
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (235 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    235 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
  • 17.3% worse value for money
    Intel Celeron N5105 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.6 vs 6.6).
    5.6 vs 6.56
  • 3.5% lower user score
    User score
    7.7/ 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
    Intel Celeron N5105
    the average processor
    Intel Celeron N5105 has a lower user score than the average processor (7.73 vs 8.000).
    7.73 vs 8
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1338
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1338 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1338 vs FP4
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, F16C, AES, SHA, CLMUL
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, F16C, AES, SHA, CLMUL 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, F16C, AES, SHA, CLMUL vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 68.3% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    467
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (467 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    467 vs 1,471
  • 32.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.9 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 73.8% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,264
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,264 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,264 vs 4,829
  • 40.3% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,493
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,493 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,493 vs 2,500
  • 62.3% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    3,989
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,989 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,989 vs 10,572.5
  • 70.6% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    820
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (820 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    820 vs 2,791
  • 51.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    235
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (235 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    235 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
  • 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
  • 91.8% slower classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    27.4
    Category Benchmark
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (27.4 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    27.4 vs 334.1
  • 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.
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 2.0 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 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
  • 8 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    20
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    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
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 40% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1.5 MB
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    256 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    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
    L2 per core
    0.38 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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
    PCIe lane count
    8
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    AV1 (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    AV1 (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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

N
notebookcheck.net
01/07/2023
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron N5105 vs Intel Core i3-1115G4 - Notebookcheck Would you like a more detailed performance breakdown based on these specific test results?...
B
browser.geekbench.com
01/08/2023
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron N5105 Benchmarks - Geekbench 6 Results
C
cpubenchmark.net
Q2 2021
Summary of the review
Intel Celeron N5105 @ 2.00GHz - CPU PassMark Benchmarks
N
notebookcheck.com
08/09/2022
Summary of the review
Beelink U59 (Pro) Mini PC Review: The New Celeron N5105 Jasper Lake
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.biz
09/08/2022
Summary of the review
Beelink U59 Review: The Celeron N5105 Jasper Lake Debuts in This Mini PC
(Translated)Show original
C
ct.nl
14/12/2022
Summary of the review
Odroid H3: single-board computer with Intel CPU", "Intel Celeron N5105 Benchmarks and Test Results", "Asustor AS6704T review: a fast NAS with NVMe slo...
(Translated)Show original
C
ct.nl
18/04/2023
Summary of the review
Hardkernel Odroid H3 review: how good is this Raspberry Pi alternative?
(Translated)Show original
T
technologyinsider.nl
03/02/2025
Summary of the review
Asustor Flashstor 6 (FS6706T) NAS Review
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on 2 buyer reviews from online shops.
Reviews last updated: May 2026 · How we calculate this
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about Intel Celeron N5105

  • Excellent power efficiency with a low 10W TDP, ideal for 24/7 home servers or fanless builds.
  • Strong hardware transcoding capabilities for Plex, supporting multiple 1080p and even 4K streams.
  • Cost-effective performance for basic office tasks, web browsing, and 4K video playback.
  • Capable of handling retro gaming up to the early 2010s era and some modern cloud gaming.
  • Compact form factor allows for very small mini-PC designs that can be mounted behind monitors.

What we don't like about Intel Celeron N5105

  • Struggles significantly with heavy multitasking or running many background applications simultaneously.
  • Poor performance in modern, GPU-heavy AAA games or professional photo/video editing software.
  • Reports of thermal throttling during sustained heavy workloads, which can lead to noticeable slowdowns.
  • Outperformed by newer budget alternatives like the Intel N100, which offers better speed for a similar price.
  • Limited upgrade potential due to its locked multiplier and mobile-class architecture.

Verdict

The Intel Celeron N5105 is a quad-core, four-thread processor from the Jasper Lake family, built on a 10nm lithography with a base frequency of 2.0 GHz and a burst frequency of up to 2.9 GHz. Its main characteristics include 4MB of L3 cache, a low 10W thermal design power (TDP), and integrated Intel UHD Graphics with 24 execution units that support 4K video at 60Hz. Main pros include its exceptional power efficiency for 24/7 operation, silent fanless cooling potential, and strong performance in light office tasks, web browsing, and hardware-accelerated media transcoding for home servers. However, its primary cons are the lack of multithreading, a relatively low 16GB official RAM limit, and insufficient processing power for heavy 4K video editing or modern AAA gaming.

Compare Intel Celeron N5105 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 N5105 and other processors

No results found