Is an Intel N100 a better value than a Raspberry Pi?

tl;dr: it depends.

About one year ago, I bought an Intel N100 mini PC (specifically the GMKtec N100 NucBox G3) and compared it to the Raspberry Pi 5 8GB.

A year later, and we have a newer $159 16GB version of that mini PC with a slightly-faster Intel N150, and a new 16GB Raspberry Pi 5.

I re-ran all my benchmarks, and this time compared like-for-like, installing Linux on the Mini PC. Many people argued comparing the OOTB experience running Windows 11 Pro (which came on the Tiny PC) to Raspberry Pi OS (which I installed on the Raspberry Pi 5) was unfair.

I have a video that goes through everything in this post, embedded below:

If you prefer to read the post instead, please continue:

N100 PCs are not created equal

In the video, I ran through four myths to test whether they hold water—one of the most difficult to assess is whether the N100 is faster and more efficient than a Pi 5.

Because unlike the Pi, an N100 (or the newer N150) is just the SoC used on dozens (maybe hundreds now?) of boards, from prebuilt Tiny PCs to full-on motherboards. Manufacturers pair the SoC with different types of RAM, IO, and cooling options.

All that to say, if you're comparing an N100 paired with slow DDR4 RAM and a weak laptop fan to one running fast DDR5 RAM with a huge desktop CPU cooler, you're going to have a pretty different experience.

But even the slower DDR4-based systems beat the Pi 5 in raw performance, in my testing. How much depends a lot on the thermals and power limits.

On the NucBox G3, with DDR4 RAM and some thermal constraints which required me to pop the top off and place a fan over the back side of the main board, it was between 1.5-2x faster than a Pi 5, depending on the benchmark.

For example, High Performance Linpack saw almost double the performance:

But note the efficiency scores. Despite the N150 using 'Intel 7' (a 10 nm process node), it gets less work done per watt than the Pi 5 (whose Arm BCM2712 chip uses a 16nm process). So the maxim of "better process node == better efficiency" does not apply universally (not to mention comparing different process nodes is a fun experiment these days, because 1nm can mean a lot of different things!).

Architecture, feature sets, and chip design still matters.

I have all the dozens of benchmark results (and a log of the full process getting them) for both computers on my SBC Reviews website.

Used Tiny PCs are Cheaper

In news that should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it for more than half a second: used Tiny PCs are cheaper. Cheaper than both new fully-kitted-out Raspberry Pi 5s, and cheaper than new Tiny PCs.

Because of the massive quantity of leased Tiny/Mini/Micro PCs for business use (every doctor's office and hospital on the planet seems to have a dozen), there's a constant churn of 3-5 year old models, and many end up on eBay.

I acquired a couple old Lenovos this way, with 7th and 8th-gen Intel CPUs. Even though they burn a few more watts at idle, they're an excellent deal if you just need a little PC to run something in a homelab, or for a lightweight desktop.

They usually have more expansion options than a cheap Tiny PC or Pi have.

But newsflash: used is different than new. Just like used gaming consoles are cheaper than new ones... you can't say "Tiny PCs are cheaper than Raspberry Pis" based on used pricing versus new.

It's enough to say Tiny PCs are cheaper than Raspberry Pis if comparing like for like specs on new machines:

The Raspberry Pi 5 16 GB model, with 512 GB of SSD storage, Raspberry Pi's NVMe HAT, an Active Cooler, an RTC battery, a 27W power adapter, and a rubber bumper case, costs $208, compared to the similarly-specced GMKtec NucBox G3 Plus.

But you can't find a new fully-kitted Tiny PC in the $60-80 range that competes with the Pi 5, which starts at $50 for the bare Pi 5 board (for a 2 GB model). The most direct comparison is the Radxa X4 (which is a very close Intel-based replacement for the Raspberry Pi). But that board's pricing is very closely aligned to the Pi, as you need to add on accessories to have a fully functional system.

All of this to say: value is complicated. The Pi 5 is much more compact and slightly more power efficient (especially at idle) compared to the cheapest N1XX Intel systems. The Intel systems are better suited for a desktop use case. The Pi 5 can be run off PoE power, for easier one-cable networking + power. The Intel systems are more compatible with a wider range of software (not the least of which is anything requiring Windows).

The idle power is the difference of maybe $10-20/year of power consumption. So it's not that big a deal for most users. But it's substantial if you're running off PoE power for remote use cases, or need to run a computer off solar or battery power.

It's not that useful to say one is cheaper than the other, because it's like saying "a bicycle is cheaper than a car." If you need to transport 4 adults 150 miles as quickly as possible, one choice is obviously better!

Other Notes

• The NucBox G3 Plus I was sent was ordered through Amazon by GMKtec as a review sample; so it comes from the same stock that's shipping to customers. My unit had a defective power adapter, only supplying 0.14V. Luckily I had my old adapter from the original NucBox G3 that I bought, and it worked fine.
• The fan connector on the NucBox G3 is actually the same JST connector / pitch that the Pi 5 uses; just an interesting observation, as I haven't seen that connector used for fans outside of SBCs like the Pi 5 before.
• DDR5 SO-DIMMs are not compatible with DDR4 SO-DIMM slots—just something I learned on this project... I knew full-size DIMMs were incompatible due to the extra on-stick ECC circuit on DDR5 RAM, I just didn't know the same applied to SO-DIMMs. Obvious in hindsight, but something to keep in mind.
• Ubuntu 24.04 required a kernel update to 6.12 (I used Mainline Kernels to do it) to work with the iGPU on the N150 SoC.