Celeron N5095 vs Celeron N5095A

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Celeron N5095 vs Celeron N5095A FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Celeron N5095 vs Celeron N5095A: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Celeron N5095

2021

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (4,013 vs 4,054).

Celeron N5095A

2021

Why buy it

✅+1% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N5095A better than Celeron N5095?

Yes. Celeron N5095A is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

For gaming, this matchup is basically a tie in the data we have.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N5095A is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron N5095A still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N5095A comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron N5095A makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron N5095 vs Celeron N5095A Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron N5095

The Celeron N5095 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Jasper Lake (2021) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 1.5 MB. Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1338. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 4,013 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron N5095A

The Celeron N5095A is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Jasper Lake (2021) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 1.5 MB. Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1338. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 4,054 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron N5095 and Celeron N5095A share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.9 GHz on the Celeron N5095 versus 2.9 GHz on the Celeron N5095A — identical boost frequencies (base: 2 GHz vs 2 GHz). Both are built on the Jasper Lake (2021) architecture using a 10 nm process. In PassMark, the Celeron N5095 scores 4,013 against the Celeron N5095A's 4,054 — a 1% lead for the Celeron N5095A. Both processors carry 4 MB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron N5095	Celeron N5095A
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 4
Boost Clock	2.9 GHz	2.9 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	2 GHz
L3 Cache	4 MB	4 MB
L2 Cache	1.5 MB	1.5 MB
Process	10 nm	10 nm
Architecture	Jasper Lake (2021)	Jasper Lake (2021)
PassMark	4,013	4,054+1%