A8-3800 vs Celeron 847

Place in the ranking	3113	2286
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop processor
Series	Intel Celeron	no data
Power efficiency	1.67	1.88
Architecture codename	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Llano (2011−2012)
Release date	19 June 2011 (13 years ago)	30 June 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$134	no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 847 and A8-3800 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)	4 (Quad-Core)
Threads	2	4
Base clock speed	1.1 GHz	2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed	1.1 GHz	2.7 GHz
Bus type	DMI 2.0	no data
Bus rate	4 × 5 GT/s	no data
Multiplier	11	no data
L1 cache	128 KB	128 KB (per core)
L2 cache	512 KB	1 MB (per core)
L3 cache	2 MB (shared)	0 KB
Chip lithography	32 nm	32 nm
Die size	131 mm²	228 mm²
Maximum core temperature	100 °C	no data
Number of transistors	504 million	1,178 million
64 bit support	+	+
Windows 11 compatibility	-	-

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 847 and A8-3800 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)	1
Socket	FCBGA1023	FM1
Power consumption (TDP)	17 Watt	65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 847 and A8-3800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions	Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2	no data
FMA	+	-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)	+	no data
Turbo Boost Technology	-	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

Celeron 847 and A8-3800 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT	-	no data
EDB	+	no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 847 and A8-3800 are enumerated here.

AMD-V	-	+
VT-d	-	no data
VT-x	+	no data
EPT	+	no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 847 and A8-3800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory types	DDR3	DDR3
Maximum memory size	16 GB	no data
Max memory channels	2	no data
Maximum memory bandwidth	21.335 GB/s	no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card Compare	Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (350 - 800 MHz)	AMD Radeon HD 6550D
Graphics max frequency	800 MHz	no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 847 and A8-3800 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 Celeron 847 and A8-3800.

PCIe version	2.0	no data
PCI Express lanes	16	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.

Celeron 847 0.30

A8-3800 1.29
+330%

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.

Celeron 847 479

A8-3800 2049
+328%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Celeron 847 157

A8-3800 291
+85.4%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Celeron 847 267

A8-3800 889
+233%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.30	1.29
Integrated graphics card	0.34	1.04
Physical cores	2	4
Threads	2	4
Power consumption (TDP)	17 Watt	65 Watt

Celeron 847 has 282.4% lower power consumption.

A8-3800, on the other hand, has a 330% higher aggregate performance score, 205.9% faster integrated GPU, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

The A8-3800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 847 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron 847 is a notebook processor while A8-3800 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 847 and A8-3800, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.