Celeron 847 vs A9-9410

VS

Aggregate performance score

A9-9410
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.96
+220%
Celeron 847
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.30

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron 847 by a whopping 220% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A9-9410 and Celeron 847 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25063114
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeIntel Celeron
Power efficiency6.061.67
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)19 June 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$134

Detailed specifications

A9-9410 and Celeron 847 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed2.9 GHz1.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz1.1 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 2.0
Bus rateno data4 × 5 GT/s
Multiplierno data11
L1 cacheno data64K (per core)
L2 cache2048 KB256K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm32 nm
Die size125 mm2131 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million504 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A9-9410 and Celeron 847 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFP4FCBGA1023
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9410 and Celeron 847. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsVirtualization,Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI+-
FMA++
AVX+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

A9-9410 and Celeron 847 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9410 and Celeron 847 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9410 and Celeron 847. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2133DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data16 GB
Max memory channels12
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21.335 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R5 GraphicsIntel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (350 - 800 MHz)
iGPU core count3no data
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-
Graphics max frequencyno data800 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A9-9410 and Celeron 847 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2
eDPno data+
DisplayPort++
HDMI++
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A9-9410 and Celeron 847 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9410 and Celeron 847.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes816

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.

A9-9410 0.96
+220%
Celeron 847 0.30

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.

A9-9410 1528
+218%
Celeron 847 480

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.

A9-9410 2694
+112%
Celeron 847 1270

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.

A9-9410 4619
+91.9%
Celeron 847 2408

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

A9-9410 2455
+147%
Celeron 847 993

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.

A9-9410 23.95
+236%
Celeron 847 80.4

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.

A9-9410 2
+145%
Celeron 847 1

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.

A9-9410 0.82
+100%
Celeron 847 0.41

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.

A9-9410 1
+1150%
Celeron 847 0.1

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.

A9-9410 879
+6.7%
Celeron 847 824

Geekbench 2

A9-9410 4260
+112%
Celeron 847 2014

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.96 0.30
Recency 31 May 2016 19 June 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 17 Watt

A9-9410 has a 220% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 13.3% lower power consumption.

The A9-9410 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 847 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9410 and Celeron 847, 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 A9-9410
A9-9410
Intel Celeron 847
Celeron 847

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.


2.8 115 votes

Rate A9-9410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 391 vote

Rate Celeron 847 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A9-9410 or Celeron 847, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.