Celeron N5095 vs Core i3-2375M
Aggregate performance score
Celeron N5095 outperforms i3-2375M by a whopping 355% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i3-2375M and Celeron N5095 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2758 | 1683 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 45 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core i3 | Intel Jasper Lake |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Jasper Lake (2021) |
| Release date | 3 February 2013 (11 years ago) | 11 January 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $250 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Core i3-2375M and Celeron N5095 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 2.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 4 × 5 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 15 | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 1.5 MB |
| L3 cache | 3 MB | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 149 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 624 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core i3-2375M and Celeron N5095 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 | FCBGA1023 | BGA1338 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i3-2375M and Celeron N5095. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| FMA | + | no data |
| AVX | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i3-2375M and Celeron N5095 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i3-2375M and Celeron N5095. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21.335 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | - | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i3-2375M and Celeron N5095.
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 8 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
TrueCrypt AES
TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.
x264 encoding pass 2
x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.
x264 encoding pass 1
x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.58 | 2.64 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.66 | 1.33 |
| Recency | 3 February 2013 | 11 January 2021 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 15 Watt |
Celeron N5095 has a 355.2% higher aggregate performance score, 101.5% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 7 years, 100% more physical cores, a 220% more advanced lithography process, and 13.3% lower power consumption.
The Celeron N5095 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-2375M in performance tests.
Be aware that Core i3-2375M is a notebook processor while Celeron N5095 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i3-2375M and Celeron N5095, 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.
