Celeron N6211 vs EPYC 4565P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 4565P outperforms Celeron N6211 by a whopping 2738% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 80 | 2377 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 70.89 | 3.33 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Elkhart Lake |
| Power efficiency | 22.54 | 20.78 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | no data |
| Architecture codename | Grado (2025) | Elkhart Lake (2022) |
| Release date | 13 May 2025 (recently) | 17 July 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $589 | $54 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 4565P has 2029% better value for money than Celeron N6211.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 4565P 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 32 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 4.3 GHz | 1.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5.7 GHz | 3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1.5 MB |
| L3 cache | 64 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 2x 70.6 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 70 °C |
| Number of transistors | 16,630 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 4565P 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 | no data |
| Socket | AM5 | BGA1493 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 6.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 4565P and Celeron N6211. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 4565P and Celeron N6211 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 4565P and Celeron N6211. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR4 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon Graphics | Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) (250 - 750 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 4565P and Celeron N6211.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 24 | 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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.73 | 1.40 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.92 | 1.33 |
| Recency | 13 May 2025 | 17 July 2022 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 2 |
| Threads | 32 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 6 Watt |
EPYC 4565P has a 2737.9% higher aggregate performance score, 44.4% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 2 years, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron N6211, on the other hand, has 2733.3% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 4565P is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron N6211 in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 4565P is a server/workstation processor while Celeron N6211 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
