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 N150 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£150PassMark benchmark result:5387N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.6 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1264TDP (Thermal design power):6 W

Intel N150 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.5

Overall score

Score
4.5/ 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 76% of models
Score components

90%

4.5

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 76% of processors
4.5

Technical score

Technical score
4.5/ 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 71% of models
Score components

60%

3.7

Performance

18%

4.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.3

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 71% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £150

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 N150

Technical score
Technical score
4.5/ 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 71% of models
Score components:

60%

3.7

Performance

18%

4.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.3

Integrated Graphics

4.5
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel N150 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
6.1/ 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 72% of models
Score components:

60%

4.5

Overall score

40%

9.7

Price

6.1
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
FCBGA1264
CPU socket
FCBGA1264
â–¼ 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
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
3.6 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.6 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.6 GHz which is lower than that of 76.7% of processors and equal to that of 3.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 0.1 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 0.1 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x0.1 GHz which is lower than that of 100% 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 7
Foundry
Intel 7
â–² 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
â–¼ 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
â–¼ 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
â–² 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
â–² 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
â–² 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)
?
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 24EU
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 24EU
â–¼ 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
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
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% 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)
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
â–² 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
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
?
Show more

Intel N150 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
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/DDR5
    â–² 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
    â–² 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
    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
  • 5 years newer release date
    Release date
    2025
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    January 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 7
    â–² 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
  • 63.7% higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    4,800 MHz
    â–² 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
  • 5 years newer release date
    Release date
    2025
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    January 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 7
    â–² 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
    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
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/DDR5
    â–² 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
    â–² 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
    â–² 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
    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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Twin Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Twin Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Twin Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 49% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    5,387
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,387 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,387 vs 10,572.5
  • 16.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.6 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 23.9% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1903
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1903 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,903 vs 2,500
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 0.1 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x0.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x0.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 29% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    347
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (347 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    347 vs 489
  • 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
  • 8.2% worse value for money
    Intel N150 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.06 vs 6.6).
    6.06 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1264 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1264 vs FP4
  • 49% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    5,387
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,387 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,387 vs 10,572.5
  • 16.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.6 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 23.9% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1903
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1903 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,903 vs 2,500
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 0.1 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x0.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x0.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 29% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    347
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (347 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    347 vs 489
  • 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
  • 34.4% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    3,169
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,169 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,169 vs 4,829
  • 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.
  • 13.1% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,278
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,278 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,278 vs 1,471
  • 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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Twin Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Twin Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Twin Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    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
  • 1 fewer memory channels
    Memory channels
    1
    â–¼ 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
  • 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)
  • 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

C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel N150 - CPU Benchmarks and Performance Data
H
hagensieker.com
14/03/2025
Summary of the review
GMKtek Intel N150 Mini PC Setup And Review
S
score.nero.com
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel N150 Benchmarks - Nero Score
C
chromeunboxed.com
21/03/2025
Summary of the review
Intel N100 vs. N150: is the new chip worth the upgrade?
A
androidpctv.com
31/12/2024
Summary of the review
Intel N150 Review and Comparison against Intel N100 and other current CPUs
M
minipc-review.com
01/02/2025
Summary of the review
Topton Intel N150 Firewall Mini-PC: Review and Hands-on Report
(Translated)Show original
C
clubic.com
24/02/2025
Summary of the review
Beelink EQ14 N150 Review: The Perfect Mini PC for the Whole Family
(Translated)Show original
A
androidpctv.com
31/12/2024
Summary of the review
Intel N150 Review and Comparison against Intel N100 and others
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
28/03/2025
Summary of the review
BMAX B4 Turbo Review: Affordable Mini PC with Intel N150
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel N150

  • Exceptional power efficiency (6W-15W TDP) making it ideal for 24/7 home lab or server use
  • Excellent value for money in budget mini PCs and laptops
  • Slightly improved single-core and GPU clock speeds over the previous N100
  • Supports modern features like DDR5 memory, AV1 hardware decoding, and Wi-Fi 7
  • Runs cool and quiet, often requiring minimal cooling even in tiny form factors

What we don't like about Intel N150

  • Sluggish performance on Windows 11 with high CPU usage during basic tasks
  • Poor gaming performance, limited mostly to retro emulation or very old titles
  • Single-channel memory restriction severely bottlenecks integrated graphics and multitasking
  • Minimal performance gains over the older N100, leading some to call it a 'factory overclock'
  • Struggles with heavy multitasking and resource-intensive software like 4K video editing

Verdict

The Intel Processor N150 is an entry-level mobile SoC from the Twin Lake series, released in early 2025 as a refresh of the popular N100. It features 4 Gracemont efficiency cores with 4 threads, a base frequency of 0.8 GHz, and a boost clock of up to 3.6 GHz, all while maintaining a remarkably low 6W thermal design power (TDP). Built on the Intel 7 process, it includes 6MB of Smart Cache and integrated Intel UHD Graphics with 24 execution units reaching up to 1.0 GHz. Main pros include exceptional power efficiency for fanless designs, support for modern DDR5-4800 memory, and hardware-accelerated 4K/AV1 video decoding, making it ideal for media servers or light office work. However, its primary cons are limited multitasking due to the absence of performance cores, weak gaming capabilities, and restricted I/O bandwidth from its single-channel memory architecture.

Compare Intel N150 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 N150 and other processors

No results found