Celeron N6211 vs Ryzen 5 1600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 1600
2017
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
7.73
+448%
Celeron N6211
2022
2 cores / 2 threads, 6 Watt
1.41

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Celeron N6211 by a whopping 448% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron N6211 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking9522198
Place by popularity44not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.503.33
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5Elkhart Lake
Power efficiency11.2520.53
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Elkhart Lake (2022)
Release date11 April 2017 (7 years ago)17 July 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$219$54

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 5 1600 has 35% better value for money than Celeron N6211.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 1600 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads122
Base clock speed3.2 GHz1.2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz3 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier32no data
L1 cache96K (per core)no data
L2 cache512K (per core)1.5 MB
L3 cache16 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography14 nm10 nm
Die size192 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data70 °C
Number of transistors4,800 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 1600 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)no data
SocketAM4BGA1493
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt6.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron N6211. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTno data
AES-NI++
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron N6211 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron N6211. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR4
Maximum memory size64 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card-Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron N6211.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes20no 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.

Ryzen 5 1600 7.73
+448%
Celeron N6211 1.41

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 12277
+447%
Celeron N6211 2245

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 4538
+68.3%
Celeron N6211 2696

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 25970
+453%
Celeron N6211 4693

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 6.85
+625%
Celeron N6211 49.66

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 13
+662%
Celeron N6211 2

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Ryzen 5 1600 1129
+782%
Celeron N6211 128

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 147
+93.4%
Celeron N6211 76

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 1.65
+70.1%
Celeron N6211 0.97

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 6.4
+553%
Celeron N6211 1

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.  

Ryzen 5 1600 69
+587%
Celeron N6211 10

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.  

Ryzen 5 1600 177
+291%
Celeron N6211 45

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 3430
+369%
Celeron N6211 731

Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core

Ryzen 5 1600 5425
+543%
Celeron N6211 844

Blender(-)

Ryzen 5 1600 404
Celeron N6211 3767
+832%

Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core

Ryzen 5 1600 950
+70.9%
Celeron N6211 556

7-Zip Single

Ryzen 5 1600 3834
+47.9%
Celeron N6211 2593

7-Zip

Ryzen 5 1600 30144
+659%
Celeron N6211 3974

WebXPRT 3

Ryzen 5 1600 180
+102%
Celeron N6211 89

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.73 1.41
Recency 11 April 2017 17 July 2022
Physical cores 6 2
Threads 12 2
Chip lithography 14 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 6 Watt

Ryzen 5 1600 has a 448.2% higher aggregate performance score, and 200% more physical cores and 500% more threads.

Celeron N6211, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 983.3% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 5 1600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N6211 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron N6211, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Ryzen 5 1600
Ryzen 5 1600
Intel Celeron N6211
Celeron N6211

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 5762 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 1600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 4 votes

Rate Celeron N6211 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 1600 or Celeron N6211, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.