Celeron N6211 vs i3-3225

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i3-3225
2012
2 cores / 4 threads, 55 Watt
1.41
Celeron N6211
2022
2 cores / 2 threads, 6 Watt
1.41

Primary details

Comparing Core i3-3225 and Celeron N6211 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22022195
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.063.33
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Seriesno dataElkhart Lake
Power efficiency2.4320.53
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Elkhart Lake (2022)
Release date3 September 2012 (12 years ago)17 July 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$264$54

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Celeron N6211 has 5450% better value for money than i3-3225.

Detailed specifications

Core i3-3225 and Celeron N6211 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed3.3 GHz1.2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz3 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache256 KB (per core)1.5 MB
L3 cache3 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography22 nm10 nm
Die size118 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data70 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)65 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Core i3-3225 and Celeron N6211 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 configuration1no data
SocketFCLGA1155BGA1493
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt6.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i3-3225 and Celeron N6211. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVXno data
AES-NI-+
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
My WiFi+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
FDI+no data

Security technologies

Core i3-3225 and Celeron N6211 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key-no data
Identity Protection+-
Anti-Theft+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i3-3225 and Celeron N6211 are enumerated here.

VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i3-3225 and Celeron N6211. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory size32 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics 4000Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU)
Quick Sync Video+-
Clear Video HD+no data
Graphics max frequency1.05 GHzno data
InTru 3D+no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core i3-3225 and Celeron N6211 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i3-3225 and Celeron N6211.

PCIe version2.0no data

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.

i3-3225 1.41
Celeron N6211 1.41

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.

i3-3225 2239
Celeron N6211 2245
+0.3%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Integrated graphics card 1.18 1.39
Recency 3 September 2012 17 July 2022
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 22 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 6 Watt

i3-3225 has 100% more threads.

Celeron N6211, on the other hand, has 17.8% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 9 years, a 120% more advanced lithography process, and 816.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core i3-3225 and Celeron N6211.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i3-3225 and Celeron N6211, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core i3-3225
Core i3-3225
Intel Celeron N6211
Celeron N6211

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 228 votes

Rate Core i3-3225 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 4 votes

Rate Celeron N6211 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i3-3225 or Celeron N6211, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.