Celeron N6211 vs A6-9400

VS

Aggregate performance score

A6-9400
2019
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
1.71
+21.3%
Celeron N6211
2022
2 cores / 2 threads, 6 Watt
1.41

A6-9400 outperforms Celeron N6211 by a significant 21% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A6-9400 and Celeron N6211 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking20532212
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data3.33
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Seriesno dataElkhart Lake
Power efficiency2.4920.53
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Elkhart Lake (2022)
Release date16 March 2019 (5 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

A6-9400 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed3.4 GHz1.2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz3 GHz
L1 cache160Kno data
L2 cache1 MB (shared)1.5 MB
Chip lithography28 nm10 nm
Die size250 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data70 °C
Number of transistors3,100 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data+

Compatibility

Information on A6-9400 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 configuration1no data
SocketAM4BGA1493
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt6.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-9400 and Celeron N6211. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A6-9400 and Celeron N6211 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A6-9400 and Celeron N6211. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2400DDR4

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardRadeon R5Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) (250 - 750 MHz)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A6-9400 and Celeron N6211.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes8no 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.

A6-9400 1.71
+21.3%
Celeron N6211 1.41

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.

A6-9400 2717
+21%
Celeron N6211 2245

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.71 1.41
Recency 16 March 2019 17 July 2022
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 6 Watt

A6-9400 has a 21.3% higher aggregate performance score.

Celeron N6211, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 983.3% lower power consumption.

The A6-9400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N6211 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A6-9400 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 A6-9400
A6-9400
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.


2.7 26 votes

Rate A6-9400 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 A6-9400 or Celeron N6211, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.