Celeron M 900 vs N6211
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N6211 and Celeron M 900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2197 | not rated |
| 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 | Intel Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 20.58 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Elkhart Lake (2022) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| Release date | 17 July 2022 (2 years ago) | 1 April 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $54 | $70 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron N6211 and Celeron M 900 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 1.2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 800 MHz |
| L2 cache | 1.5 MB | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 70 °C | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 410 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N6211 and Celeron M 900 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 | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6.5 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N6211 and Celeron M 900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N6211 and Celeron M 900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) | no 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 17 July 2022 | 1 April 2009 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron N6211 has an age advantage of 13 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 350% more advanced lithography process, and 483.3% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron N6211 and Celeron M 900. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Celeron N6211 is a desktop processor while Celeron M 900 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N6211 and Celeron M 900, 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.
