Celeron N6211 vs Phenom II X4 N970

Aggregate performance score

Phenom II X4 N970
2010
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
1.04
Celeron N6211
2022
2 cores / 2 threads, 6 Watt
1.41
+35.6%

Celeron N6211 outperforms Phenom II X4 N970 by a substantial 36% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Phenom II X4 N970 and Celeron N6211 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking24502215
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data3.33
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
Series4x AMD Phenom IIElkhart Lake
Power efficiency2.8120.53
Architecture codenameChamplain (2010−2011)Elkhart Lake (2022)
Release date16 December 2010 (14 years ago)17 July 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$54

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Phenom II X4 N970 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speedno data1.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz3 GHz
Bus rate3600 MHzno data
L1 cache512 KBno data
L2 cache2 MB1.5 MB
Chip lithography45 nm10 nm
Maximum core temperatureno data70 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Phenom II X4 N970 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.

SocketS1BGA1493
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt6.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X4 N970 and Celeron N6211. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X4 N970 and Celeron N6211. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) (250 - 750 MHz)

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.

Phenom II X4 N970 1.04
Celeron N6211 1.41
+35.6%

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.

Phenom II X4 N970 1647
Celeron N6211 2245
+36.3%

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Phenom II X4 N970 1861
Celeron N6211 2696
+44.9%

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Phenom II X4 N970 6811
+45.1%
Celeron N6211 4693

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Phenom II X4 N970 17.8
+179%
Celeron N6211 49.66

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Phenom II X4 N970 3
+51.5%
Celeron N6211 2

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.04 1.41
Recency 16 December 2010 17 July 2022
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 45 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 6 Watt

Phenom II X4 N970 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron N6211, on the other hand, has a 35.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 350% more advanced lithography process, and 483.3% lower power consumption.

The Celeron N6211 is our recommended choice as it beats the Phenom II X4 N970 in performance tests.

Be aware that Phenom II X4 N970 is a notebook processor while Celeron N6211 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X4 N970 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.


AMD Phenom II X4 N970
Phenom II X4 N970
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.


4.4 73 votes

Rate Phenom II X4 N970 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 Phenom II X4 N970 or Celeron N6211, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.