Celeron 847 vs N6211

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron N6211
2022, $54
2 cores / 2 threads, 6 Watt
1.27
+338%

Celeron N6211 outperforms Celeron 847 by a whopping 338% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking24753363
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.330.01
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesElkhart LakeIntel Celeron
Power efficiency8.310.73
DesignerIntelIntel
Manufacturerno dataIntel
Architecture codenameElkhart Lake (2022)Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release date17 July 2022 (3 years ago)19 June 2011 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$54$134

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Celeron N6211 has 33200% better value for money than Celeron 847.

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

Celeron N6211 and Celeron 847 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)
Threads22
Base clock speed1.2 GHz1.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz1.1 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 2.0
Bus rateno data4 × 5 GT/s
Multiplierno data11
L1 cacheno data64K (per core)
L2 cache1.5 MB256K (per core)
L3 cacheno data2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography10 nm32 nm
Die sizeno data131 mm2
Maximum core temperature70 °C100 °C
Number of transistorsno data504 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N6211 and Celeron 847 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 configurationno data1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketBGA1493FCBGA1023
Power consumption (TDP)6.5 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N6211 and Celeron 847. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI+-
FMA-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

Celeron N6211 and Celeron 847 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N6211 and Celeron 847 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N6211 and Celeron 847. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data16 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21.335 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) (250 - 750 MHz)Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (350 - 800 MHz)
Graphics max frequencyno data800 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N6211 and Celeron 847 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N6211 and Celeron 847.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

Celeron N6211 1.27
+338%
Celeron 847 0.29

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.

Celeron N6211 2245
+343%
Samples: 2
Celeron 847 507
Samples: 475

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.

Celeron N6211 2696
+112%
Celeron 847 1270

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.

Celeron N6211 4693
+94.9%
Celeron 847 2408

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.

Celeron N6211 49.66
+61.9%
Celeron 847 80.4

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.

Celeron N6211 2
+154%
Celeron 847 1

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.

Celeron N6211 0.97
+137%
Celeron 847 0.41

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.

Celeron N6211 1
+1125%
Celeron 847 0.1

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.

Celeron N6211 731
Celeron 847 824
+12.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.27 0.29
Integrated graphics card 1.26 0.33
Recency 17 July 2022 19 June 2011
Chip lithography 10 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 6 Watt 17 Watt

Celeron N6211 has a 337.9% higher aggregate performance score, 281.8% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 11 years, a 220% more advanced lithography process, and 183.3% lower power consumption.

The Intel Celeron N6211 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron 847 in performance tests.

Note that Celeron N6211 is a desktop processor while Celeron 847 is a notebook one.

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 Celeron N6211
Celeron N6211
Intel Celeron 847
Celeron 847

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

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


2 5 votes

Rate Celeron N6211 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 409 votes

Rate Celeron 847 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors Celeron N6211 and Celeron 847, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.