Phenom II X4 910e vs Celeron N6211
Aggregate performance score
Celeron N6211 outperforms Phenom II X4 910e by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N6211 and Phenom II X4 910e processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2196 | 2241 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.33 | 0.09 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Elkhart Lake | no data |
| Power efficiency | 20.56 | 1.96 |
| Architecture codename | Elkhart Lake (2022) | Deneb (2009−2011) |
| Release date | 17 July 2022 (2 years ago) | 25 January 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $54 | $157 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Celeron N6211 has 3600% better value for money than Phenom II X4 910e.
Detailed specifications
Celeron N6211 and Phenom II X4 910e 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 | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1.5 MB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 258 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 70 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 758 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N6211 and Phenom II X4 910e 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 configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | BGA1493 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6.5 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N6211 and Phenom II X4 910e. 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 Celeron N6211 and Phenom II X4 910e. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N6211 and Phenom II X4 910e.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.44 | 1.37 |
| Recency | 17 July 2022 | 25 January 2010 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron N6211 has a 5.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 350% more advanced lithography process, and 983.3% lower power consumption.
Phenom II X4 910e, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron N6211 and Phenom II X4 910e.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N6211 and Phenom II X4 910e, 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.
