Celeron N5105 vs Core i7-4910MQ
Aggregate performance score
i7-4910MQ outperforms Celeron N5105 by an impressive 54% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i7-4910MQ and Celeron N5105 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1388 | 1688 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core i7 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Haswell (2013−2015) | Jasper Lake (2021) |
| Release date | 19 January 2014 (10 years ago) | 11 January 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $568 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Core i7-4910MQ 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1.5 MB |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 177 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 105 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1400 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core i7-4910MQ 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 | 1 |
| Socket | rPGA | BGA1338 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 47 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-4910MQ and Celeron N5105. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | no data |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | + | no data |
Security technologies
Core i7-4910MQ and Celeron N5105 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-4910MQ and Celeron N5105 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-4910MQ and Celeron N5105. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | - | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 4600 | Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-4910MQ and Celeron N5105.
| 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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made 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 (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.04 | 2.62 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.84 | 2.20 |
| Recency | 19 January 2014 | 11 January 2021 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 47 Watt | 10 Watt |
i7-4910MQ has a 54.2% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more threads.
Celeron N5105, on the other hand, has 19.6% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 6 years, a 120% more advanced lithography process, and 370% lower power consumption.
The Core i7-4910MQ is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N5105 in performance tests.
Be aware that Core i7-4910MQ is a notebook processor while Celeron N5105 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-4910MQ 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.
