Celeron N6211 vs Ryzen 5 1600
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Celeron N6211 by a whopping 448% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron N6211 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 881 | 2092 |
| Place by popularity | 51 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 13.38 | 3.51 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | Elkhart Lake |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Elkhart Lake |
| Release date | 11 April 2017 (7 years ago) | 17 July 2022 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $219 | $54 |
| Current price | $115 (0.5x MSRP) | $240 (4.4x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 5 1600 has 281% better value for money than Celeron N6211.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 1600 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 | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 12 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 1.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 1.5 MB |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 1600 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 | AM4 | BGA1493 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 6.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron N6211. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron N6211 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron N6211. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron N6211.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 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.
Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Celeron N6211 by 448% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Celeron N6211 by 447% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Celeron N6211 by 68% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Celeron N6211 by 453% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 18%
Celeron N6211 outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 625% in wPrime 32.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Celeron N6211 by 662% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Celeron N6211 by 782% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Celeron N6211 by 93% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Celeron N6211 by 70% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.
TrueCrypt AES
TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Celeron N6211 by 553% in TrueCrypt AES.
WinRAR 4.0
WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Celeron N6211 by 369% in WinRAR 4.0.
x264 encoding pass 2
x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Celeron N6211 by 587% in x264 encoding pass 2.
x264 encoding pass 1
x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Celeron N6211 by 291% in x264 encoding pass 1.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.94 | 1.45 |
| Recency | 11 April 2017 | 17 July 2022 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 2 |
| Threads | 12 | 2 |
| Cost | $219 | $54 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 6 Watt |
The Ryzen 5 1600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N6211 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1600 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.
