N95 VS N100 mini pc

Thumbnail image: You're here. Your audience is here. You should advertise here.

As you can see here they're almost identical in CPU performance:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5206vs5157/Intel-N95-vs-Intel-N100

But they differ in graphics, the N95 has 16 Execution Units, the N100 has 24. So for gaming the N100 is clearly better.

But to be clear, both are gonna be pretty bad for anything but the lowest quality gaming, expect 720p gaming and mostly just older games like GTA 5.

They're gonna be just fine as HTPCs though, just don't expect amazing multitasking. These are meant for basic tasks.

Does AMD have an alternative with better graphics? I am fine with a fan for extra heat, but AMD must have better graphics options, even if using old RDNA2.

Given how strong the PlayStation 5 and Xbox are, AMD must have a great low-power APU, right??? If not, it would nice to know either way.

Thank you.

Do you think it can play 4K HDR Remux with 75MB/s of bitrate content flawlessly?

More replies

Overall the N100 performs a little better in games than the N95 if that is the intent. You can watch is video which compares the two side by side.

There is no power consumption measurements, but the N100 is rated a 6w as opposed to15w for the N95.

The N100 is going to be the faster option, especially with anything that uses the GPU.

I really hope some mini PC manufacturers upgrade these to the N97, which is basically an i3-N305 (32 EUs at full speed) with only 4 cores rather than 8, which with single-channel memory really doesn't matter that much.

N97 is basically N100 just with higher clocks due to higher TDP (12W for n97 vs. 6W for n100). Same 24 EU iGP. Completely not worth it IMHO - you get about 10% (or less) performance gain for theoretically 100% higher power consumption under full load...