Celeron N6211 vs A8-3850

VS

Aggregate performance score

A8-3850
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 100 Watt
1.55
+5.4%

A8-3850 outperforms Celeron N6211 by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A8-3850 and Celeron N6211 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking21382193
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data3.33
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesA-Series (Desktop)Elkhart Lake
Power efficiency1.4120.62
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Elkhart Lake (2022)
Release date30 June 2011 (13 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

A8-3850 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 speed2.9 GHz1.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.9 GHz3 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1.5 MB
L3 cache0 KBno data
Chip lithography32 nm10 nm
Die size228 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data70 °C
Number of transistors1,178 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on A8-3850 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
SocketFM1BGA1493
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt6.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-3850 and Celeron N6211. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-3850 and Celeron N6211 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3850 and Celeron N6211. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 6550DIntel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU)

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.

A8-3850 1.55
+5.4%
Celeron N6211 1.47

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.

A8-3850 2374
+5.7%
Celeron N6211 2245

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.

A8-3850 2649
Celeron N6211 2696
+1.8%

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.

A8-3850 9534
+103%
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.

A8-3850 14.2
+250%
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.

A8-3850 3
+107%
Celeron N6211 2

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.55 1.47
Integrated graphics card 1.04 1.39
Recency 30 June 2011 17 July 2022
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 6 Watt

A8-3850 has a 5.4% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron N6211, on the other hand, has 33.7% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 11 years, a 220% more advanced lithography process, and 1566.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between A8-3850 and Celeron N6211.


Should you still have questions on choice between A8-3850 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 A8-3850
A8-3850
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.


3.8 174 votes

Rate A8-3850 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 A8-3850 or Celeron N6211, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.