I have reviewed several of the TerraMaster NAS models and continue to use the TerraMaster F2-423 and TerraMaster F4-422 as my main storage servers at home.

TerraMaster has recently launched the F4-424/F2-424, which supersedes the two models I have and uses the Intel Celeron N95. They have also launched a Pro model, which uses the more powerful Intel i3-N305.

Some of these Intel processors are popular with other, devices, such as Mini PCs, and there are some options that are designed specifically to be used either as a firewall or NAS. AliExpress has become a popular source for DIY NAS and firewalls, with plenty of options for multiple 2.5GbE ports and passive cooling.

Related Content

• TerraMaster F4-422 10GbE 4-Bay NAS Review
• TerraMaster F4-421 NAS Review (2021 Model)
• TerraMaster D5-300C USB3.0 5-Bay RAID Direct Attached Storage Review – NAS vs DAS
• Synology DS218play 2 Bay NAS Review

TerraMaster NAS Models with Intel Celeron N5095

TerraMaster models that use the N5095 include:

• T6-423 – 6-bay NAS T6-423 and 2.5GbE LAN x 2 – £600
• F4-423 – 4-bay NAS with 4GB DDR4 and 2.5GbE LAN x 2 – £440
• F2-423 – 2-bay NAS with 4GB DDR4 and 2.5GbE LAN x 2 – £339

TerraMaster NAS Models with Intel Celeron N95

• F4-424 – 4-bay NAS with 8GB DDR5 and 2.5GbE LAN x 2 – £480
• F2-424 – 4-bay NAS with 8GB DDR5 and 2.5GbE LAN x 2 – £370

TerraMaster NAS With Intel i3-N305

Currently, TerraMaster only has the F4-424 Pro with the Intel Core i3-N305. This includes 1x 32 GB DDR5 non-ECC SODIMM and 2 x 2.5GbE LAN

Intel Celeron N5095 vs N95 vs i3-N305 Specification

Intel Celeron N5095 vs N95 vs i3-N305 CPU Cores and Base Frequency

The number of cores and base frequency are crucial factors in determining a processor’s performance:

• Intel Celeron N5095: 4 cores, 4 threads, base frequency of 2.0 GHz, boost frequency of 2.9 GHz
• Intel Celeron N95: 4 cores, 4 threads, base frequency of 1.7 GHz, boost frequency of 3.4 GHz
• Intel Core i3-N305: 8 cores, 8 threads, base frequency of 1.8 GHz, boost frequency of 3.8 GHz

Intel Celeron N5095 vs N95 vs i3-N305 Integrated graphics (iGPU)

Integrated graphics can be important for tasks such as hardware transcoding in NAS applications:

• Intel Celeron N5095: Intel UHD Graphics with 16 execution units, max frequency of 750 MHz
• Intel Celeron N95: Intel UHD Graphics with 24 execution units, max frequency of 1.2 GHz
• Intel Core i3-N305: Intel UHD Graphics with 32 execution units, max frequency of 1.25 GHz

The i3-N305 offers the most powerful integrated graphics, followed by the N95, which could be beneficial for media-focused NAS applications.

Intel Celeron N5095 vs N95 vs i3-N305 Hardware codec support

Hardware codec support is crucial for efficient media transcoding:

• Intel Celeron N5095: H.264, H.265/HEVC (8-bit), VP9 (8-bit), AV1 (8-bit)
• Intel Celeron N95: H.264, H.265/HEVC (10-bit), VP9 (10-bit), AV1 (10-bit)
• Intel Core i3-N305: H.264, H.265/HEVC (12-bit), VP9 (12-bit), AV1 (12-bit)

The i3-N305 and N95 offer superior codec support compared to the N5095, with the i3-N305 providing the most comprehensive range.

Intel Celeron N5095 vs N95 vs i3-N305 Memory & PCIe

Memory and PCIe support can impact overall system performance and expandability:

• Intel Celeron N5095: DDR4-2933, up to 16GB, dual-channel; PCIe 3.0 x4
• Intel Celeron N95: DDR5-4800, up to 16GB, dual-channel; PCIe 4.0 x8
• Intel Core i3-N305: DDR5-4800, up to 32GB, dual-channel; PCIe 4.0 x8

The N95 and i3-N305 offer significant improvements in memory and PCIe support compared to the N5095, with the i3-N305 supporting larger memory capacities.

Intel Celeron N5095 vs N95 vs i3-N305 Thermal Management / Power Draw

Thermal management and power consumption are important considerations for NAS and home server applications:

• Intel Celeron N5095: 15W TDP
• Intel Celeron N95: 15W base TDP, configurable up to 20W
• Intel Core i3-N305: 15W base TDP, configurable up to 25W

All three processors have a similar base TDP, but the N95 and i3-N305 offer configurable TDP options for potentially higher performance at the cost of increased power.

Intel Celeron N5095 vs N95 vs i3-N305 Benchmarks

Cinebench R23 Scores

Cinebench R23 is a popular benchmark for measuring CPU performance:

• Intel Celeron N5095: Single-core: 1,124; Multi-core: 3,316
• Intel Celeron N95: Single-core: 1,310; Multi-core: 4,090
• Intel Core i3-N305: Single-core: 1,440; Multi-core: 7,210

The i3-N305 demonstrates significantly higher multi-core performance, while also leading in single-core tasks.

PassMark CPU Mark

PassMark’s CPU Mark provides an overall performance score:

• Intel Celeron N5095: 3,461
• Intel Celeron N95: 4,875
• Intel Core i3-N305: 8,780

These scores further highlight the performance advantage of the i3-N305, with the N95 showing a notable improvement over the N5095.

GeekBench 5 Scores

GeekBench 5 offers another perspective on CPU performance:

• Intel Celeron N5095: Single-core: 650; Multi-core: 2,050
• Intel Celeron N95: Single-core: 780; Multi-core: 2,550
• Intel Core i3-N305: Single-core: 1,100; Multi-core: 4,800

Once again, the i3-N305 demonstrates superior performance in both single-core and multi-core tests.

Application in NAS and Home Server Environments

When considering these processors for NAS and home server applications, it’s important to evaluate their strengths in relation to common tasks and use cases.

File Serving and Storage Management

For basic file serving and storage management tasks, all three processors are capable performers. The N5095 has been a popular choice in NAS devices for its balance of performance and power efficiency. However, the N95 and i3-N305 offer improved performance that can be beneficial in multi-user environments or when dealing with large file transfers.

Media Streaming and Transcoding

Media streaming and transcoding capabilities are often crucial for home NAS setups. The improved integrated graphics and codec support of the N95 and i3-N305 make them better suited for these tasks compared to the N5095. The i3-N305, in particular, stands out for its ability to handle more simultaneous transcoding streams due to its higher core count and superior iGPU.

Virtualisation and Docker Containers

For users interested in running virtual machines or Docker containers on their NAS, the additional cores and improved performance of the i3-N305 provide a significant advantage. The N95 also offers better performance than the N5095 in these scenarios, but may struggle with more demanding virtualisation tasks compared to the i3-N305.

Network Performance

All three processors support dual 2.5GbE LAN ports in the TerraMaster NAS models, providing ample network bandwidth for most home and small office environments. However, the improved overall performance of the N95 and i3-N305 may allow for better utilisation of this bandwidth in scenarios with multiple simultaneous users or large file transfers.

Power Consumption and Cooling

While the base TDP is similar for all three processors, the configurable TDP options of the N95 and i3-N305 allow for potentially higher performance at the cost of increased power consumption. In passively cooled systems, such as some NAS and firewall appliances, the N5095 may still be the preferred option. 

Intel Celeron N5095 vs N95 vs i3-N305 NAS Price Differences

The price difference between the N5095 and N95 models is relatively small, making the N95 an attractive option for its improved performance. The i3-N305 model, while offering superior performance, is likely to come at a premium price point that may not be justifiable for all users.

For DIY solutions, the price differences between these processors can vary, but generally follow a similar pattern, with the i3-N305 being the most expensive option.

Overall

All three processors are good for a NAS and they all have plenty of performance to provide basic server functionality that most home users want.

The main considerations would be the number of applications you host on your server and if any of those applications require a large amount of processing power. The main one for most people will be media apps like Plex, where you may need to transcode streams if you are accessing the NAS externally.

Alternatively, there are a growing number of apps that use AI-like features to process your data. I personally use Immich and Paperless, and both require increased processing power when adding new images or documents. Immich, in particular, will take quite a bit longer to identify faces on a lower-powered processor.

I think the i3-N305 is probably overkill for most peoples needs, especially when you look at the price difference. The N95 looks like the sweet spot for most people, it is not much more expensive than the N5095 which offering a good amount of extra processing power and superior media decoding functionality.

Intel Celeron N5095

The N5095 remains a capable processor for basic NAS and home server tasks. Its lower power consumption and established track record make it a reliable choice for users with modest performance requirements. It’s particularly well-suited for:

• Basic file serving and storage management
• Light media streaming (without heavy transcoding)
• Low-power, passively cooled systems

Intel Celeron N95

The N95 represents a significant improvement over the N5095, offering better performance across the board without a substantial increase in power consumption. It’s a good choice for users who want improved performance without stepping up to the higher-priced i3 model. The N95 is well-suited for:

• More demanding file serving and storage tasks
• Improved media streaming and transcoding capabilities
• Light to moderate virtualisation and container workloads

Intel Core i3-N305

The i3-N305 is the clear performance leader among these processors, offering significantly higher multi-core performance and improved integrated graphics. It’s the best choice for users with demanding workloads or those who prioritise future-proofing their NAS investment. The i3-N305 excels in:

• High-performance file serving and storage management
• Demanding media streaming and transcoding scenarios
• Running multiple virtual machines or containers
• Handling complex, multi-threaded tasks

James Smythe( Editor-in-chief )

I am James, a UK-based tech enthusiast and the Editor and Owner of Mighty Gadget, which I’ve proudly run since 2007. Passionate about all things technology, my expertise spans from computers and networking to mobile, wearables, and smart home devices.

As a fitness fanatic who loves running and cycling, I also have a keen interest in fitness-related technology, and I take every opportunity to cover this niche on my blog. My diverse interests allow me to bring a unique perspective to tech blogging, merging lifestyle, fitness, and the latest tech trends.

In my academic pursuits, I earned a BSc in Information Systems Design from UCLAN, before advancing my learning with a Master’s Degree in Computing. This advanced study also included Cisco CCNA accreditation, further demonstrating my commitment to understanding and staying ahead of the technology curve.

I’m proud to share that Vuelio has consistently ranked Mighty Gadget as one of the top technology blogs in the UK. With my dedication to technology and drive to share my insights, I aim to continue providing my readers with engaging and informative content.