Celeron N5105 vs Atom Z670
Primary details
Comparing Atom Z670 and Celeron N5105 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 1737 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Atom | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 24.13 |
| Architecture codename | Lincroft (2010−2011) | Jasper Lake (2021) |
| Release date | 11 April 2011 (13 years ago) | 11 January 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $75 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Atom Z670 and Celeron N5105 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Bus type | cDMI | no data |
| Bus rate | 400 MT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 8 | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 1.5 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 65 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 140 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Atom Z670 and Celeron N5105 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | T-PBGA518 | FCBGA1338 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 3 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom Z670 and Celeron N5105. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
Security technologies
Atom Z670 and Celeron N5105 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| SGX | no data | - |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom Z670 and Celeron N5105 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | + |
| VT-x | - | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom Z670 and Celeron N5105. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 2.93 GB | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | 1 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 3.2 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | PowerVR SGX535 | Intel UHD Graphics |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 800 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 24 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Atom Z670 and Celeron N5105 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| LVDS | + | no data |
| MIPI-DSI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Atom Z670 and Celeron N5105 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2160@60Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096x2160@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096x2160@60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Atom Z670 and Celeron N5105 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom Z670 and Celeron N5105.
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 8 |
| PCI support | - | no data |
| USB revision | no data | 2.0/3.2 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 14 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | - |
| UART | no data | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 11 April 2011 | 11 January 2021 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 3 Watt | 10 Watt |
Atom Z670 has 233.3% lower power consumption.
Celeron N5105, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 years, 300% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 350% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Atom Z670 and Celeron N5105. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Atom Z670 is a notebook processor while Celeron N5105 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Atom Z670 and Celeron N5105, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
