I’d like to know what the logic is that helps you reach that conclusion, because if I were to compare two CPUs used in desktops: the worst of 2014 and the best of 2002, which to my mind is probably something like an AMD A4-4000 vs say an Athlon XP 2800+, I’d expect the A4 to wipe the floor with the Athlon. Especially considering that the A4 is shown beating the likes of the Athlon 64 FX / X2 here:
I suspect that my expectation is correct.
At the end of the day I expect that we’re approaching this from two different perspectives, mine is that crap like the N100 is being sold in *desktop PCs*, in my customer’s case an AIO PC, in my view it’s part of an objective from the big-name PC builders who are pining for the era of 1998 when PCs were being replaced three years later, and that they’re selling utter rubbish but posing as a desktop PC, so therefore it should be able to compete as a perfectly respectable desktop CPU in this era.
Here’s another counterpoint – I’ve got a customer’s cheap-ass Celeron G1840 (Haswell era) PC on my workbench, and here’s the same benchmark but it’s narrowly beating a desktop Core 2 Duo from 2007:
View attachment 137683
Can anyone imagine a TV advert saying, “buy an N100 today, core-for-core it’s slightly better than crap we were making 12 years ago!”?