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 N100 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£170PassMark benchmark result:5341N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.4 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1264TDP (Thermal design power):6 W

Intel N100 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.1

Overall score

Score
4.1/ 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 85% of models
Score components

90%

4.1

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▼Worse than 85% of processors
4.1

Technical score

Technical score
4.1/ 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 81% of models
Score components

60%

3.0

Performance

18%

5.7

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated Graphics

▼Worse than 81% 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

*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 N100

Technical score
Technical score
4.1/ 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 81% of models
Score components:

60%

3.0

Performance

18%

5.7

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated Graphics

4.1
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 N100 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
5.8/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components:

60%

4.1

Overall score

40%

9.6

Price

5.8
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
FCBGA1264
CPU socket
FCBGA1264
▼ Worse than 93% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1264 CPU socket, which is older than that of 93.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% 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
4
N. of physical cores
4
▼ 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
▼ 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
▼ 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
3.4 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.4 GHz
▼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.4 GHz which is lower than that of 83.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 1 GHz
▼ Worse than 94% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x1 GHz which is lower than that of 94.5% 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 7
Foundry
Intel 7
▲ Better than 66% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 66.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.9% of processors.
L3 cache
6 MB
L3 cache
6 MB
▼ Worse than 60% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
L2 cache
2 MB
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 51% of processors and equal to that of 11.2% of processors.
L1 cache
384 KB
L1 cache
384 KB
▲ Better than 45% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 384 KB which is larger than that of 44.9% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
▲ Better than 79% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5, which is newer than that of 79.1% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,800 MHz
Maximum memory speed
4,800 MHz
▲ Better than 67% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,800 MHz, which is higher than that of 66.7% of processors and equal to 5.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-4800 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-4800 MHz
▲ Better than 64% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5-4800 MHz, which is higher than that of 63.6% of processors and equal to 0.3% of processors.
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.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 24EU
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 24EU
▼ Worse than 63% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 24EU integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 62.9% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Integrated GPU execution units
24
▲ 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
?
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)
25 W
Boost power (PL2)
25 W
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 25 W which is lower than that of 83% of processors and equal to that of 8% 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 N100 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Alder Lake
    ▲ Better than 68% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/DDR5
    ▲ Better than 79% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 58.3% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    25 W
    ▲ Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    25 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
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, SMAP, SMEP
    ▲ Better than 72% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 7
    ▲ Better than 66% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, SMAP, SMEP
    ▲ Better than 72% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 3 years newer release date
    Release date
    2023
    ▲ Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    January 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • 2 wider front-end design
    Front-end width
    6
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <2 – >7
    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
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Alder Lake
    ▲ Better than 68% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 7
    ▲ Better than 66% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 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/DDR5
    ▲ Better than 79% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 63.7% higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    4,800 MHz
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4800 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    4,800 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 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
  • 58.3% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    25 W
    ▲ Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    25 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
  • 20.9% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.4 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 65.8% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    954
    ▼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (954 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    954 vs 2,791
  • 49.5% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    5,341
    ▼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,341 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,341 vs 10,572.5
  • 24.4% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,891
    ▼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,891 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,891 vs 2,500
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    ▼ 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
  • 30.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    338
    ▼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (338 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    338 vs 489
  • 27.7% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,063
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,063 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,063 vs 1,471
  • 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.
  • 13.3% worse value for money
    Intel N100 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.79 vs 6.6).
    5.79 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI
    ▼ Worse than 86% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1264
    ▼ Worse than 93% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1264 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1264 vs FP4
  • 20.9% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.4 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 65.8% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    954
    ▼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (954 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    954 vs 2,791
  • 49.5% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    5,341
    ▼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,341 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,341 vs 10,572.5
  • 24.4% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,891
    ▼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,891 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,891 vs 2,500
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    ▼ 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
  • 30.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    338
    ▼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (338 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    338 vs 489
  • 27.7% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,063
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,063 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,063 vs 1,471
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 1 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 94% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 38.6% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    2,965
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,965 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,965 vs 4,829
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    ▼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 20% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    2 MB
    ▼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    2 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 25% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    6 MB
    ▼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    6 MB vs 8 MB
  • 7 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    9
    ▼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (9 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    9 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
  • 16.2% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    38.4 GB/s
    ▼ 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
  • 1 fewer memory channels
    Memory channels
    1
    ▼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    1 vs 2
  • 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

T
techradar.com
17/10/2024
Summary of the review
Chuwi FreeBook N100 review
X
xda-developers.com
28/11/2025
Summary of the review
5 mistakes everyone makes when buying an Intel N100 mini PC (and how to avoid them)
B
bret.dk
25/10/2023
Summary of the review
Intel N100 vs RK3588: The Ultimate x86 vs ARM Home Server Battle
T
techtest.org
18/03/2024
Summary of the review
How much RAM does the Intel N100 support?
(Translated)Show original
G
gnulinux.ch
06/01/2025
Summary of the review
Intel N100 Power Consumption Benchmarks", "Intel N100 Energy Consumption Measurement
(Translated)Show original
H
heise.de
02/08/2023
Summary of the review
Asus ExpertCenter PN42: Fanless Mini-PC with Intel Processor N100 Review
(Translated)Show original
P
pausehardware.com
21/10/2026
Summary of the review
Review of the MSI Cubi N ADL N100 Mini PC", "MSI Cubi N ADL N100 Mini PC Review
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshardware.fr
08/02/2023
Summary of the review
A first look at the Intel N100: The Celeron in disguise", "Intel N100 review: The Celeron that dares not speak its name
(Translated)Show original
M
minimachines.net
10/02/2023
Summary of the review
Intel Alder Lake N100: A First Look at Gaming Performance
(Translated)Show original
P
profesionalreview.com
24/03/2024
Summary of the review
Intel N100: How does it perform in GAMING?
(Translated)Show original
I
it.techreviewer.de
09/02/2026
Summary of the review
MINIX Z100-0dB Review: A Silent Mini PC with Intel N100
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
07/01/2025
Summary of the review
Laptop Best Buy Guide - Best Chromebook - Tweakers
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel N100

  • Exceptional power efficiency with a 6W TDP, ideal for fanless and silent builds.
  • Strong value for money in budget mini PCs and entry-level laptops.
  • Excellent for media centers due to hardware-accelerated 4K playback and AV1 decoding.
  • Noticeable single-core performance improvement over older Celeron (N5100/N5095) chips.
  • Reliable for 24/7 low-power server duties like NAS, Plex, and Home Assistant.
  • Full x86 compatibility, offering better software support than ARM-based alternatives.

What we don't like about Intel N100

  • Not suitable for gaming, video editing, or heavy 3D rendering tasks.
  • Limited multitasking performance due to having only 4 efficiency cores and no performance cores.
  • Restricted to single-channel memory, which can bottleneck performance.
  • Official RAM support is typically limited to 16GB (though 32GB may work in some systems).
  • May struggle with modern, heavy web applications or bloated software environments.
  • Limited PCIe lanes and expansion options compared to mainstream Core i3/Ryzen processors.

Verdict

The Intel N100 is an ultra-low-power entry-level processor based on the 10nm Alder Lake-N architecture, featuring 4 Efficiency cores (E-cores) with a base clock of 1.0 GHz and a turbo boost up to 3.4 GHz. Designed for high efficiency with a nominal 6W TDP, it includes 6MB of L3 cache, an integrated Intel UHD Graphics engine with 24 Execution Units (EUs), and support for single-channel DDR4-3200 or DDR5-4800 memory. Its primary advantages are exceptional power efficiency that allows for fanless cooling, hardware-accelerated AV1 decoding for smooth 4K media playback, and a mature x86 ecosystem that ensures broad compatibility with Windows 11 and Linux. However, it is held back by the lack of Hyper-Threading, a single-channel memory limitation that restricts bandwidth, and an underpowered iGPU that is unsuitable for modern gaming or intensive creative workloads.

Compare Intel N100 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 N100 and other processors

No results found