Intel Celeron N5095 Performance
We wanted to just quickly look at the relative CPU performance between this unit and a few others on the market. We have reviewed this form factor with the J4125, N5105, and N6005 as well, so we are really looking for the relative performance between those four options.
Python Linux 4.4.2 Kernel Compile Benchmark
This is one of the most requested benchmarks for STH over the past few years. The task was simple, we have a standard configuration file, the Linux 4.4.2 kernel from kernel.org, and make the standard auto-generated configuration utilizing every thread in the system. We are expressing results in terms of compiles per hour to make the results easier to read:
Here we just wanted to show that the performance was near the AMD Pro A10-8707E we found in our Project TinyMiniMicro HP EliteDesk 705 G3 Mini CE Review. This is a much newer and lower power CPU, but that HP review set off our Project TinyMiniMicro series.
7-zip Compression Performance
7-zip is a widely used compression/ decompression program that works cross-platform. We started using the program during our early days with Windows testing. It is now part of Linux-Bench.
Here we just wanted to show that modern “big core” CPUs fairly easily out-pace this solution. Even going back to the 4C/ 4T Intel Core i5-6500T versus the N5095 4C/ 4T platform, we see the six (soon seven) generation old Core processor was faster than this. When we run Proxmox VE on these nodes, then put pfSense or OPNsense on them, we are really looking at virtualizing lightweight services not doing heavier virtualization. If you want a better virtualization host, the Project TinyMiniMicro platforms are better.
OpenSSL is widely used to secure communications between servers. This is an important protocol in many server stacks. We first look at our sign tests:
Here are the verify results:
Still, compared to the J4125, these are faster by quite a bit. For a basic firewall/ NAT box, the J4125 is still a good option as it uses less power.
4x 2.5GbE pfSense NAT Testing
Since we got asked, here is a pfSense VM on Proxmox VE using our How to Pass-through PCIe NICs with Proxmox VE on Intel and AMD guide (more on that later in this review) passing traffic over two dedicated NICs using NAT and 10 firewall rules and zero additional tunings.
We again saw line rate 2.5GbE speeds (~2.3-2.4Gbps.) During stress testing, we also raised the ambient temperature to 28-29C and had no issues running multi-day tests. The benefit of the faster processor is being able to add more to IDS and other features on the box with a bit more headroom. Still, for basic cases, even installing pfSense/ OPNsense in a Proxmox VE VM and pushing traffic both from the base OS, but also from the VM’s across all four NICs worked fine.
Next, let us get to power consumption, noise, and our final words.
Power Consumption and Noise
Power consumption on these was interesting. We have received a number of reports that the Jasper Lake power supplies that come with the Topton and KingNovy units are of very poor quality. We have had readers replace the PSUs and save a few watts. At the same time, our other sense is that most of our readers will use the standard power supplies. Admittedly, with the J4125 units that use significantly less power, we have a few now on PoE+ splitters.
At idle, we saw between 11-12W depending on single versus double SODIMM configurations. Maximum power consumption hit just over 27W. This is a few watts more than we saw on our N5105 unit and quite a bit more than we saw on the J4125 units.
These boxes are designed to largely be “always-on” devices. Saving a few watts may be a big or small deal. In some places in Europe, power is $3-7 per watt per year, so saving a few watts adds up quickly, especially on always-on devices.
Next, let us get to our key lessons learned.