A10-7300 vs Celeron N6211
Aggregate performance score
Celeron N6211 outperforms A10-7300 by a significant 29% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N6211 and A10-7300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2197 | 2399 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.33 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Elkhart Lake | AMD Kaveri |
| Power efficiency | 20.58 | 5.47 |
| Architecture codename | Elkhart Lake (2022) | Kaveri (2014−2015) |
| Release date | 17 July 2022 (2 years ago) | 4 June 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $54 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron N6211 and A10-7300 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.2 GHz | 1.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L2 cache | 1.5 MB | 4096 KB |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | no data | 245 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 70 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 2410 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N6211 and A10-7300 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 | BGA1493 | FP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6.5 Watt | 19 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N6211 and A10-7300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| FRTC | - | + |
| TrueAudio | - | + |
| PowerNow | - | + |
| PowerGating | - | + |
| Out-of-band client management | - | + |
| VirusProtect | - | + |
| HSA | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N6211 and A10-7300 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| IOMMU 2.0 | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N6211 and A10-7300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) | AMD Radeon R6 Graphics |
| iGPU core count | no data | 6 |
| Enduro | - | + |
| Switchable graphics | - | + |
| UVD | - | + |
| VCE | - | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N6211 and A10-7300 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron N6211 and A10-7300 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | DirectX® 12 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N6211 and A10-7300.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.44 | 1.12 |
| Recency | 17 July 2022 | 4 June 2014 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 19 Watt |
Celeron N6211 has a 28.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 216.7% lower power consumption.
A10-7300, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
The Celeron N6211 is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-7300 in performance tests.
Note that Celeron N6211 is a desktop processor while A10-7300 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N6211 and A10-7300, 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.
