EPYC Embedded 3151 vs Celeron N6211
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N6211 and EPYC Embedded 3151 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2165 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.33 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | Elkhart Lake | AMD EPYC Embedded |
| Architecture codename | Elkhart Lake (2022) | Zen (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 17 July 2022 (2 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $54 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron N6211 and EPYC Embedded 3151 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 1.2 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 27 |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1.5 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 213 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 70 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N6211 and EPYC Embedded 3151 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | BGA1493 | AMD BGA SP4r2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6.5 Watt | 45 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N6211 and EPYC Embedded 3151. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N6211 and EPYC Embedded 3151 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N6211 and EPYC Embedded 3151. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR4-2666 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 512 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 42.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N6211 and EPYC Embedded 3151.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 32 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 17 July 2022 | 21 February 2018 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 45 Watt |
Celeron N6211 has an age advantage of 4 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 650% lower power consumption.
EPYC Embedded 3151, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
We couldn't decide between Celeron N6211 and EPYC Embedded 3151. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Celeron N6211 is a desktop processor while EPYC Embedded 3151 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N6211 and EPYC Embedded 3151, 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.
