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 N97 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£110PassMark benchmark result:5840N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.6 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1264TDP (Thermal design power):12 W

Intel N97 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.3

Overall score

Score
4.3/ 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 81% of models
Score components

90%

4.3

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 81% of processors
4.3

Technical score

Technical score
4.3/ 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 76% of models
Score components

60%

3.2

Performance

18%

5.7

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 76% 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~ £110

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 N97

    Technical score
    Technical score
    4.3/ 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 76% of models
    Score components:

    60%

    3.2

    Performance

    18%

    5.7

    Cache & Architecture

    10%

    5.0

    Memory & PCIe

    7%

    7.2

    Power & Thermal

    4%

    7.2

    Platform

    1%

    6.9

    Integrated Graphics

    4.3
    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 N97 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
    6.0/ 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 76% of models
    Score components:

    60%

    4.3

    Overall score

    40%

    9.9

    Price

    6.0
    Brand name
    Intel
    Processor type
    embedded
    Processor type
    embedded
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This processor belongs to the embedded processor class, which is less advanced than that of 92.7% of processors and equal to that of 7.3% 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 2.0 GHz
    CPU base clock speed
    4x 2.0 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    This processor has a base clock of 4x2.0 GHz which is lower than that of 73.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
    Show more
    Semiconductor size
    10 nm
    Semiconductor size
    10 nm
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 52.4% of processors and equal to that of 19.1% of processors.
    Foundry
    Intel 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/LPDDR5
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5, which is newer than that of 95.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% 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)
    LPDDR5-4800 MHz
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    LPDDR5-4800 MHz
    â–² 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
    32 GB
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 71.9% of processors and equal to 19.5% 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
    ?
    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)
    12 W
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    12 W
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a TDP of 12 W which is lower than that of 94.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
    Base power (PL1)
    12 W
    Base power (PL1)
    12 W
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a base power of 12 W which is lower than that of 93.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% 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
    no
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
    Show more

    Intel N97 vs the average processor

    246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
    • Newer DDR support
      DDR memory version
      DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5
      ★ Better than 95% of models
      This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
      DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 vs DDR4
    • More advanced microarchitecture
      Microarchitecture codename
      Alder Lake
      â–² 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
    • 73.3% lower base power
      Base power (PL1)
      12 W
      ★ Better than 94% of models
      Market range: <15 W – >90 W
      This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (12 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
      12 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
    • 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
    • 73.3% lower TDP
      TDP (Thermal design power)
      12 W
      ★ Better than 94% of models
      Market range: <15 W – >90 W
      This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (12 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
      12 W vs 45 W
    • 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
    • Advanced security extensions
      Security extensions
      AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET
      â–² Better than 64% of models
      This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
      AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
    • 3 years newer release date
      Release date
      2023
      â–² 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
    • More advanced microarchitecture
      Microarchitecture codename
      Alder Lake
      â–² 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
      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/LPDDR5
      ★ Better than 95% of models
      This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
      DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR5 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
    • 73.3% lower base power
      Base power (PL1)
      12 W
      ★ Better than 94% of models
      Market range: <15 W – >90 W
      This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (12 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
      12 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
    • 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
    • 73.3% lower TDP
      TDP (Thermal design power)
      12 W
      ★ Better than 94% of models
      Market range: <15 W – >90 W
      This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (12 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
      12 W vs 45 W
    • 60.1% weaker multi-core performance
      Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
      1,115
      â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
      Market range: <702 – >10.8k
      This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,115 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
      1,115 vs 2,791
    • 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
    • 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
    • 44.8% lower PassMark score
      PassMark benchmark result
      5,840
      â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
      Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
      This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,840 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
      5,840 vs 10,572.5
    • No configurable TDP
      Configurable TDP
      no
      â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
      This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
    • 18.7% weaker single-core performance
      PassMark single-core benchmark score
      2032
      â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
      Market range: <1.4k – >4k
      This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2032 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
      2,032 vs 2,500
    • 24.1% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
      Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
      371
      â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
      Market range: <282 – >775
      This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (371 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
      371 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
    • 9.1% worse value for money
      Intel N97 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.02 vs 6.6).
      6.02 vs 6.56
    • Narrower instruction support
      Instruction sets
      MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, FMA3, AES
      â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
      This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
      MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, FMA3, AES 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
    • 60.1% weaker multi-core performance
      Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
      1,115
      â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
      Market range: <702 – >10.8k
      This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,115 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
      1,115 vs 2,791
    • 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
    • 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
    • 44.8% lower PassMark score
      PassMark benchmark result
      5,840
      â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
      Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
      This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,840 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
      5,840 vs 10,572.5
    • 18.7% weaker single-core performance
      PassMark single-core benchmark score
      2032
      â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
      Market range: <1.4k – >4k
      This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2032 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
      2,032 vs 2,500
    • 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
    • 24.1% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
      Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
      371
      â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
      Market range: <282 – >775
      This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (371 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
      371 vs 489
    • 34.4% lower multi-core score
      Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
      3,168
      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 (3,168 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
      3,168 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.
    • Lower base clock
      CPU base clock speed
      4 x 2.0 GHz
      â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
      This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
      4x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
    • 11.6% lower single-core score
      Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
      1,300
      â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
      Market range: <561 – >2.7k
      This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,300 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
      1,300 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
    • 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
    • 50% less memory capacity
      Maximum memory capacity
      32 GB
      â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
      Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
      This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
      32 GB vs 64 GB
    • 16.2% lower memory bandwidth
      Maximum memory bandwidth
      38.4 GB/s
      â–¼ 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
      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)
    • No configurable TDP
      Configurable TDP
      no
      â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
      This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
    • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
      CPU temperature
      105 °C
      â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
      Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
      This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
      105 °C vs 100 °C

    Video reviews

    Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

    Expert reviews

    In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

    T
    techtest.org
    26/05/2025
    Summary of the review
    ACEMAGIC V1 Mini PC Review: Is the Intel N97 Dwarf Worth It?
    (Translated)Show original
    P
    pocketpc.ch
    23/11/2024
    Summary of the review
    NiPoGi GK3 Plus Mini PC with Intel N97 Review
    (Translated)Show original
    N
    notebookcheck.biz
    13/03/2024
    Summary of the review
    Acemagic S1 Review: Home Mini PC with Intel N97, 512GB, and Built-in Display
    (Translated)Show original
    C
    cpubenchmark.net
    28/05/2023
    Summary of the review
    Intel N97 - CPU Benchmarks (Italian Data)
    (Translated)Show original
    L
    laptopmedia.com
    01/06/2023
    Summary of the review
    Intel Processor N97 | LaptopMedia
    (Translated)Show original
    N
    notebookcheck.nl
    13/03/2024
    Summary of the review
    Acemagic S1 Mini-PC review - Intel N97
    (Translated)Show original

    Third-party reviews

    What we like about Intel N97

    • Better graphics performance than the N100 due to higher iGPU clock speeds (1.2 GHz)
    • Capable of handling 4K video playback and streaming smoothly
    • Excellent energy efficiency with a low 12W TDP, making it ideal for always-on devices like NAS or media servers
    • Strong value for budget-conscious users, often found in very affordable mini PCs
    • Supports modern features like AV1 decoding and Intel Quick Sync for video processing
    • Decent for light gaming (2D titles and some older 3D games like GTA V at reduced settings) and emulation

    What we don't like about Intel N97

    • Limited to 4 cores and 4 threads with no hyper-threading, which restricts heavy multitasking
    • Often paired with slower M.2 SATA storage rather than NVMe in budget configurations
    • Susceptible to thermal throttling in very small chassis, sometimes requiring thermal paste repasting for optimal performance
    • Single-channel memory support limits overall bandwidth and system snappiness
    • Lacks the performance needed for modern intensive 3D gaming or professional video editing
    • Integrated 12GB RAM in some popular models is non-upgradeable and can be a bottleneck

    Verdict

    The Intel N97 is an entry-level mobile processor from the Alder Lake-N series, featuring 4 efficiency cores (Gracemont architecture) with 4 threads and a maximum turbo frequency of 3.60 GHz. Built on the Intel 7 process, it includes 6MB of L3 cache, a 12W TDP, and integrated Intel UHD Graphics with 24 execution units running at up to 1.20 GHz. Main pros include its superior graphics clock speed and multi-core performance compared to the popular N100 model, making it a strong budget choice for mini-PCs, media streaming, and light emulation. However, it is hindered by its single-channel memory support (DDR4-3200 or DDR5-4800), lack of Hyper-Threading, and limited PCIe Gen 3 lane count, which restricts its use in demanding 3D gaming or high-end expansion setups.

    Compare Intel N97 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 N97 and other processors

    No results found