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 N250 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£160PassMark multi-core score:4875N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.8 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1264TDP (Thermal design power):6 W

Intel N250 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 1 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.5/10

Overall score

Score
5.5/ 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 90% of models
Score components

40%

4.5

Technical score

25%

4.5

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 90% of processors
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components

70%

5.5

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 79%
4.5

Technical score

Technical score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

4.4

Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 71%
4.5

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.5/ 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 82% of models

4.5

Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 82%
?

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~ £160
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 N250

Technical score
Technical score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components:

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

4.4

Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated graphics

4.5
Reviews score
4.5
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components:

70%

5.5

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

6.8
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.
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
3.8 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.8 GHz which is lower than that of 70.3% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.3 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.3 GHz which is lower than that of 88.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
4,875
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 4,875 in PassMark, which is lower than 73.6% 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)
?
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 730
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 730 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 54.4% of processors and equal to that in 2.1% 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
AV1 (HW decode)
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 61.3% of processors and equal to 10.3% 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

Intel N250 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 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
  • 5 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    January 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • 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
  • 5 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    January 2025
    2025 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
  • 10 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (38 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    38 vs 28
  • 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
  • 32.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.5/ 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 82% of models

    4.5

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.5 vs 6.7
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Twin Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Twin Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 57.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,875 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,875 vs 11,469
  • 26.3% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,886 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,886 vs 2,558
  • 46.5% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,786 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,786 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • 13.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 32.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.5/ 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 82% of models

    4.5

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.5 vs 6.7
  • 7.7% worse value for money
    Intel N250 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.76 vs 7.3).
    6.76 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
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 57.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,875 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,875 vs 11,469
  • 26.3% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,886 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,886 vs 2,558
  • 46.5% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,786 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,786 vs 5,209
  • 13.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.8 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 (4x1.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x1.3 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
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 20.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,224 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,224 vs 1,535
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Twin Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Twin Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    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), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
ct.nl
≈ estimated
19/05/2025
Hands-on review · Office mini PC
Verdict
The Gigabyte Brix GB-BTIP-N250 is a quiet, compact office mini PC with good ports, but its PCIe Gen 3 x2 storage and Wi-Fi 5 are dated.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel N250

  • Efficient power consumption with a base power of only 6W, ideal for fanless mini-PCs and Chromebooks
  • Improved graphics performance over the N100 due to more Execution Units (32 EUs vs 24 EUs) and higher GPU clock speeds
  • Smoothly handles 4K video transcoding and 2160p streaming (e.g., Netflix), making it a solid choice for home media servers like Jellyfin
  • Higher CPU boost clocks (up to 3.8 GHz) provide a noticeable performance uplift for basic productivity tasks compared to previous N-series models
  • Modern feature set includes support for AVX2, WiFi 7, and DDR5-4800 memory

What customers don't like about Intel N250

  • Strictly limited to single-channel memory, which significantly bottlenecks overall system and integrated graphics performance
  • Maximum RAM capacity is officially capped at 16GB, and users have reported failures when attempting to use 32GB modules that worked on older N100 chips
  • Very poor gaming performance; only suitable for older titles at low resolutions (e.g., 720p) and incapable of running AAA games
  • Performance remains limited to basic tasks like web browsing and office work; it struggles under heavy multitasking or demanding desktop activity
  • Uses an older 10nm manufacturing process (Intel 7), which is less power-efficient than newer 3nm or 4nm alternatives from competitors

Verdict

The Intel Processor N250 is an entry-level mobile processor from the 'Twin Lake' family (Q1 2025), featuring 4 cores and 4 threads based on the energy-efficient Gracemont architecture with a max turbo frequency of 3.8 GHz and a 6 MB Smart Cache. Designed for low-power devices like mini PCs and budget laptops, it operates with a base power of just 6W and includes an integrated Intel UHD Graphics unit with 32 execution units capable of supporting up to three 4K displays at 60Hz. Main pros include its extremely low power consumption, support for modern DDR5-4800 memory, and hardware-accelerated AV1 decoding; however, cons include a lack of Hyper-Threading, a restriction to single-channel memory, and reliance on the older PCIe 3.0 standard.

Compare Intel N250 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 N250 and other processors

No results found