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 N200 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£310PassMark multi-core score:4607N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.7 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1264TDP (Thermal design power):6 W

Intel N200 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 6 expert and video reviews 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 92% of models
Score components

40%

4.3

Technical score

25%

4.3

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 92% of processors
6.4

Value for money

Value for money
6.4/ 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 91% of models
Score components

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

8.9

Price

â–¼Worse than 91%
4.3

Technical score

Technical score
4.3/ 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 77% of models
Score components

60%

3.1

Performance

18%

6.0

Architecture

10%

4.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 77%
4.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.3/ 10
✕
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
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models

4.3

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.3

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (6)
2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 85%
?

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~ £310
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel N200

Based on 0 · 3

Reviewers mostly praise how quietly and coolly it runs, though a few aren't fully convinced by the cooling.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel N200

Technical score
Technical score
4.3/ 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 77% of models
Score components:

60%

3.1

Performance

18%

6.0

Architecture

10%

4.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated graphics

4.3
Reviews score
4.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.4/ 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 91% of models
Score components:

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

8.9

Price

6.4
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
laptop
CPU socket
FCBGA1264
This processor uses the FCBGA1264 CPU socket, which is older than that of 93.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% 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, AVX-VNNI, FMA3, AES, SHA
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, FMA3, AES, SHA instruction sets, which is broader support than 53.7% 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
3.7 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.7 GHz which is lower than that of 74.2% of processors and equal to that of 3.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.0 GHz which is lower than that of 94.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
4,607
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 4,607 in PassMark, which is lower than 75.1% 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 7
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
L3 cache
6 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 52.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
L1 cache
384 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 384 KB which is larger than that of 44% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5, which is newer than that of 95.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,800 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,800 MHz, which is higher than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-4800 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-4800 MHz, which is higher than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to 6.7% of processors.
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.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 32EU
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 32EU integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 60.4% of processors and equal to that in 0.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
32
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 32 GPU execution units, which is more than 70.1% of processors and equal to 10.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
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 85.4% of processors and equal to 5.4% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
6 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 6 W which is lower than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
6 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 6 W which is lower than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
25 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 25 W which is lower than that of 84.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.2% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel N200 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • 86.7% lower base power
    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
  • 60.9% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    25 W vs 64 W
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    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 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 foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 50% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4,800 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    4,800 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 3 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    January 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • 50% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4,800 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    4,800 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 86.7% lower base power
    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
  • 60.9% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    25 W vs 64 W
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    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 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
  • 35.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.3/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models

    4.3

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.3 vs 6.7
  • 59.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,607 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,607 vs 11,469
  • 30.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,767 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,767 vs 2,558
  • 66.8% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (930 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    930 vs 2,804.5
  • 45.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (265 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    265 vs 490
  • 15.9% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x1.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 35.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.3/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models

    4.3

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.3 vs 6.7
  • 13.2% worse value for money
    Intel N200 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.44 vs 7.3).
    6.44 vs 7.29
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1264 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1264 vs FP5
  • 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, AVX-VNNI, FMA3, AES, SHA 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, AVX-VNNI, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 59.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,607 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,607 vs 11,469
  • 30.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,767 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,767 vs 2,558
  • 66.8% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (930 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    930 vs 2,804.5
  • 45.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (265 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    265 vs 490
  • 15.9% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x1.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 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
  • 30.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,617 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,617 vs 5,209
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 19.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,238 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,238 vs 1,535
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 33.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    2 MB vs 3 MB
  • 33.3% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    6 MB vs 9 MB
  • 7 fewer PCIe lanes
    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
    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
  • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 1 fewer memory channels
    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
    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

8.0
josher14
≈ estimated
04/10/2023
Gameplay test · Age of Empires II at low settings
Verdict
Intel N200 handles Age of Empires II without trouble at low settings.
6.0
Robtech
≈ estimated
11/09/2023
Hands-on review · fanless cooling, benchmarks and emulation tests
Verdict
Intel N200 powers a silent, fanless mini PC, but it offers only small gains over the N100 model.
8.0
MergeDroid
≈ estimated
04/02/2025
Full review · battery, ports, display and keyboard tests
Verdict
Intel N200 powers a fanless, good-value Chromebook for everyday use, though the speakers and ports are limited.
Not graded
Shop video
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel N200

  • Extremely power-efficient with a 6W TDP, leading to excellent battery life in portable devices
  • Capable of fanless cooling, allowing for completely silent operation in mini-PCs and tablets
  • Good performance for everyday office tasks, web browsing, and 4K video streaming
  • Modern feature set including AV1 hardware decoding, Wi-Fi 6E, and Bluetooth 5.2 support
  • Solid multitasking for a budget chip when paired with sufficient RAM (e.g., 16GB)
  • Significant efficiency and performance gains over older entry-level chips like the Athlon Silver 3050e

What customers don't like about Intel N200

  • Very limited gaming performance due to low iGPU clock speeds (750 MHz) and low execution unit count
  • Strict single-channel memory support significantly handicaps potential graphics and system bandwidth
  • Lack of Hyper-Threading (4 cores, 4 threads) limits performance in heavily multithreaded workloads
  • Only a marginal performance improvement (~8-10%) over the cheaper and more common Intel N100
  • TDP limits can cause the chip to throttle or underperform in sustained heavy tasks
  • Limited PCIe lanes and lack of Thunderbolt support compared to higher-end mobile processors

Verdict

The Intel Processor N200 is an entry-level mobile CPU from the Alder Lake-N series, featuring 4 efficient cores (Gracemont architecture) and 4 threads with a max turbo frequency of 3.7 GHz. Built on the 10nm Intel 7 process, it includes 6MB of L3 cache, a very low 6W TDP, and integrated UHD Graphics with 32 execution units. Its main advantages are exceptional energy efficiency and a low heat profile that allows for fanless, silent operation in thin laptops and mini PCs, while supporting modern features like AV1 decoding and Wi-Fi 6E. However, its performance is limited by a lack of hyper-threading and a single-channel memory controller (supporting up to 16GB of DDR4-3200 or DDR5-4800), making it unsuitable for demanding gaming or heavy multitasking.

Compare Intel N200 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 N200 and other processors

No results found