Celeron N6211 vs Ryzen 7 3750H

VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 7 3750H
2019
4 cores / 8 threads, 35 Watt
5.10
+262%
Celeron N6211
2022
2 cores / 2 threads, 6 Watt
1.41

Ryzen 7 3750H outperforms Celeron N6211 by a whopping 262% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 7 3750H and Celeron N6211 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking12182212
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data3.33
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Ryzen 7Elkhart Lake
Power efficiency13.7920.53
Architecture codenamePicasso (Zen+) (2019)Elkhart Lake (2022)
Release date6 January 2019 (5 years ago)17 July 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$54

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 7 3750H 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads82
Base clock speed2.3 GHz1.2 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz3 GHz
Bus typePCIe 3.0no data
Multiplier23no data
L1 cache384 KBno data
L2 cache2 MB1.5 MB
L3 cache4 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography12 nm10 nm
Die size209.78 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °C70 °C
Number of transistors4940 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 7 3750H 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
SocketFP5BGA1493
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt6.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 3750H and Celeron N6211. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A, AES, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, SHAno data
AES-NI++
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 3750H and Celeron N6211 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 3750H 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 bandwidth38.397 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon RX Vega 10 ( - 1400 MHz)Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) (250 - 750 MHz)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 3750H and Celeron N6211.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes12no 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 7 3750H 5.10
+262%
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 7 3750H 8097
+261%
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 7 3750H 4770
+76.9%
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 7 3750H 20687
+341%
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 7 3750H 7.44
+567%
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 7 3750H 9
+458%
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 7 3750H 734
+473%
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 7 3750H 144
+89.5%
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 7 3750H 1.64
+69.1%
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 7 3750H 5
+410%
Celeron N6211 1

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 7 3750H 2866
+292%
Celeron N6211 731

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 7 3750H 49
+386%
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 7 3750H 139
+208%
Celeron N6211 45

Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core

Ryzen 7 3750H 3537
+319%
Celeron N6211 844

Blender(-)

Ryzen 7 3750H 633
Celeron N6211 3767
+495%

Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core

Ryzen 7 3750H 874
+57.2%
Celeron N6211 556

7-Zip Single

Ryzen 7 3750H 3659
+41.1%
Celeron N6211 2593

7-Zip

Ryzen 7 3750H 18689
+370%
Celeron N6211 3974

WebXPRT 3

Ryzen 7 3750H 153
+71.5%
Celeron N6211 89

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.10 1.41
Integrated graphics card 4.24 1.39
Recency 6 January 2019 17 July 2022
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 8 2
Chip lithography 12 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 6 Watt

Ryzen 7 3750H has a 261.7% higher aggregate performance score, 205% faster integrated GPU, and 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

Celeron N6211, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 20% more advanced lithography process, and 483.3% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 7 3750H is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N6211 in performance tests.

Be aware that Ryzen 7 3750H is a notebook processor while Celeron N6211 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 3750H 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 7 3750H
Ryzen 7 3750H
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 1339 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 3750H 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 7 3750H or Celeron N6211, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.