Celeron N6211 vs i7-2710QE
Aggregate performance score
Core i7-2710QE outperforms Celeron N6211 by an impressive 80% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i7-2710QE and Celeron N6211 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1736 | 2197 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.33 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core i7 | Elkhart Lake |
| Power efficiency | 5.36 | 20.59 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Elkhart Lake (2022) |
| Release date | 3 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 17 July 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $378 | $54 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i7-2710QE 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 1.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 2.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 4 × 5 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 21 | no data |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1.5 MB |
| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 216 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 70 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1160 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core i7-2710QE 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 configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | no data |
| Socket | FCPGA988 | BGA1493 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 6.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-2710QE and Celeron N6211. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
Security technologies
Core i7-2710QE and Celeron N6211 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-2710QE and Celeron N6211 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-2710QE and Celeron N6211. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333, DDR3-1600 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 16.6 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.598 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.2 GHz | no data |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i7-2710QE and Celeron N6211 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| SDVO | + | no data |
| CRT | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-2710QE and Celeron N6211.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 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.
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 | 2.56 | 1.42 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.66 | 1.39 |
| Recency | 3 January 2011 | 17 July 2022 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 6 Watt |
i7-2710QE has a 80.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
Celeron N6211, on the other hand, has 110.6% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 11 years, a 220% more advanced lithography process, and 650% lower power consumption.
The Core i7-2710QE is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N6211 in performance tests.
Be aware that Core i7-2710QE is a notebook processor while Celeron N6211 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-2710QE 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.
