Celeron N5095A vs FX-8100

Celeron N5095A vs FX-8100 Performance Spectrum

Celeron N5095A

4 / 4

4,054

0.0%

Core i7-940XM

Celeron G4950

Pentium Gold G5400T

Pentium Dual Core T3200

4,095

+1.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

About PassMark

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 N5095A vs FX-8100 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 N5095A vs FX-8100: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N5095A

2021

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 95W, a 94W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-8100 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (4,054 vs 4,095).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (4 MB vs 8 MB).

FX-8100

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +16.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 4 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $300 MSRP, while Celeron N5095A mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌6233.3% higher power demand at 95W vs 1.5W.

Quick Answers

So, is FX-8100 better than Celeron N5095A?

Yes. FX-8100 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 16.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, FX-8100 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 16.6% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, FX-8100 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 4 MB).

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

FX-8100 is the better buy right now. FX-8100 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $300 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 16.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (13.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron N5095A makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron N5095A vs FX-8100 Technical Specifications

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

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.

FX-8100

The FX-8100 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 12 October 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Zambezi (2011−2012) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 8 MB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,095 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N5095A packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the FX-8100 offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the FX-8100 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.9 GHz on the Celeron N5095A versus 3.7 GHz on the FX-8100 — a 24.2% clock advantage for the FX-8100 (base: 2 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Celeron N5095A uses the Jasper Lake (2021) architecture (10 nm), while the FX-8100 uses Zambezi (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N5095A scores 4,054 against the FX-8100's 4,095 — a 1% lead for the FX-8100. L3 cache: 4 MB on the Celeron N5095A vs 8 MB (total) on the FX-8100.

Feature	Celeron N5095A	FX-8100
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	8 / 8+100%
Boost Clock	2.9 GHz	3.7 GHz+28%
Base Clock	2 GHz	2.8 GHz+40%
L3 Cache	4 MB	8 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	1.5 MB	8 MB+433%
Process	10 nm-69%	32 nm
Architecture	Jasper Lake (2021)	Zambezi (2011−2012)
PassMark	4,054	4,095+1%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	455
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	1,621

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N5095A uses the BGA1338 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the FX-8100 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.