Celeron N6211 vs Apple M4 Pro (12 cores)
Aggregate performance score
Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) outperforms Celeron N6211 by a whopping 1884% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and Celeron N6211 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 167 | 2208 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.33 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Apple M4 | Elkhart Lake |
| Power efficiency | 82.29 | 20.42 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Elkhart Lake (2022) |
| Release date | 30 October 2024 (less than a year ago) | 17 July 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $54 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) 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 | 12 (Dodeca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 12 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.592 GHz | 1.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.51 GHz | 3 GHz |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 1.5 MB |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 10 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 70 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | + |
Compatibility
Information on Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) 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.
| Socket | no data | BGA1493 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 32 Watt | 6.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) 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 Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and Celeron N6211. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR4 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Apple M4 16-core GPU | Intel 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.
Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core
WebXPRT 4 Overall
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 27.97 | 1.41 |
| Recency | 30 October 2024 | 17 July 2022 |
| Physical cores | 12 | 2 |
| Threads | 12 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 32 Watt | 6 Watt |
Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) has a 1883.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 500% more physical cores and 500% more threads, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron N6211, on the other hand, has 433.3% lower power consumption.
The Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N6211 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) 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.
