Celeron 847E vs 1020E
Aggregate performance score
Celeron 1020E outperforms Celeron 847E by a whopping 144% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 1020E and Celeron 847E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2564 | 3050 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 2.40 | 2.02 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 20 January 2013 (11 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $111 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 1020E and Celeron 847E 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 1.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 2.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 11 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 118 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 504 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 1020E and Celeron 847E 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | G2 (988B) | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 1020E and Celeron 847E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| FMA | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
Security technologies
Celeron 1020E and Celeron 847E technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 1020E and Celeron 847E are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 1020E and Celeron 847E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3-1333 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21.335 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (650 - 1000 MHz) | Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) |
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 | 0.88 | 0.36 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.63 | 0.34 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 17 Watt |
Celeron 1020E has a 144.4% higher aggregate performance score, 85.3% faster integrated GPU, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 847E, on the other hand, has 105.9% lower power consumption.
The Celeron 1020E is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 847E in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 1020E and Celeron 847E, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
