Celeron N6211 vs i3-6102E
Aggregate performance score
Core i3-6102E outperforms Celeron N6211 by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i3-6102E and Celeron N6211 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2148 | 2193 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.08 | 3.33 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core i3 | Elkhart Lake |
| Power efficiency | 5.58 | 20.62 |
| Architecture codename | Skylake (2015−2016) | Elkhart Lake (2022) |
| Release date | 12 October 2015 (9 years ago) | 17 July 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $225 | $54 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Celeron N6211 has 4063% better value for money than i3-6102E.
Detailed specifications
Core i3-6102E 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.9 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 3.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 19 | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 1.5 MB |
| L3 cache | 3 MB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 98.57 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 70 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1750 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core i3-6102E 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 configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | no data |
| Socket | no data | BGA1493 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 6.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i3-6102E and Celeron N6211. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| TSX | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i3-6102E and Celeron N6211 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i3-6102E and Celeron N6211. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | LPDDR3-1866 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 34.134 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 530 | Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i3-6102E and Celeron N6211.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | no 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.
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 | 1.53 | 1.47 |
| Integrated graphics card | 2.59 | 1.39 |
| Recency | 12 October 2015 | 17 July 2022 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 6 Watt |
i3-6102E has a 4.1% higher aggregate performance score, 86.3% faster integrated GPU, and 100% more threads.
Celeron N6211, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 316.7% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core i3-6102E and Celeron N6211.
Be aware that Core i3-6102E is a notebook processor while Celeron N6211 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i3-6102E and Celeron N6211, 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.
