Ultra 7 265F vs Celeron N6211
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N6211 and Core Ultra 7 265F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2176 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.33 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Elkhart Lake | no data |
| Power efficiency | 20.58 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Elkhart Lake (2022) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 17 July 2022 (2 years ago) | January 2025 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $54 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron N6211 and Core Ultra 7 265F 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) | 20 (Icosa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | 1.2 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 5.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1.5 MB | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 30 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 3 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 70 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N6211 and Core Ultra 7 265F 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 | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6.5 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N6211 and Core Ultra 7 265F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron N6211 and Core Ultra 7 265F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N6211 and Core Ultra 7 265F are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N6211 and Core Ultra 7 265F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N6211 and Core Ultra 7 265F.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 2 | 20 |
| Threads | 2 | 20 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron N6211 has 983.3% lower power consumption.
Ultra 7 265F, on the other hand, has 900% more physical cores and 900% more threads, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron N6211 and Core Ultra 7 265F. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N6211 and Core Ultra 7 265F, 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.
