Celeron 1020E vs N6211
Aggregate performance score
Celeron N6211 outperforms Celeron 1020E by an impressive 60% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N6211 and Celeron 1020E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2193 | 2537 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.33 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Elkhart Lake | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 20.62 | 2.40 |
| Architecture codename | Elkhart Lake (2022) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 17 July 2022 (2 years ago) | 20 January 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $54 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron N6211 and Celeron 1020E basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 1.2 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1.5 MB | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | no data | 118 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 70 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N6211 and Celeron 1020E compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | BGA1493 | G2 (988B) |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6.5 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N6211 and Celeron 1020E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron N6211 and Celeron 1020E technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N6211 and Celeron 1020E are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N6211 and Celeron 1020E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.47 | 0.92 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.39 | 0.63 |
| Recency | 17 July 2022 | 20 January 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron N6211 has a 59.8% higher aggregate performance score, 120.6% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 9 years, a 120% more advanced lithography process, and 483.3% lower power consumption.
The Celeron N6211 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1020E in performance tests.
Note that Celeron N6211 is a desktop processor while Celeron 1020E is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N6211 and Celeron 1020E, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
