Athlon 300U vs Celeron 847

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 847
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.30
Athlon 300U
2019
2 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
2.43
+710%

Athlon 300U outperforms Celeron 847 by a whopping 710% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 847 and Athlon 300U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking31131771
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD Athlon
Power efficiency1.6715.33
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Raven Ridge 2 (2019)
Release date19 June 2011 (13 years ago)6 January 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$134no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 847 and Athlon 300U 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)
Threads24
Base clock speed1.1 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed1.1 GHz3.3 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0PCIe 3.0
Bus rate4 × 5 GT/sno data
Multiplier1124
L1 cache128 KB192 KB
L2 cache512 KB1 MB
L3 cache2 MB (shared)4 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm14 nm
Die size131 mm2209.78 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistors504 million4940 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 847 and Athlon 300U 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)1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCBGA1023FP5
Power consumption (TDP)17 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 847 and Athlon 300U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT
AES-NI-+
FMA+-
AVX-+
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 Athlon 300U 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 Athlon 300U 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 Athlon 300U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory size16 GB64 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth21.335 GB/s38.397 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (350 - 800 MHz)AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 ( - 1000 MHz)
Graphics max frequency800 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 847 and Athlon 300U integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 847 and Athlon 300U.

PCIe version2.03.0
PCI Express lanes1612

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
Athlon 300U 2.43
+710%

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
Athlon 300U 3867
+707%

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.

Celeron 847 1270
Athlon 300U 3968
+213%

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.

Celeron 847 2408
Athlon 300U 8724
+262%

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.

Celeron 847 80.4
Athlon 300U 15.44
+421%

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.

Celeron 847 0.1
Athlon 300U 1.9
+2275%

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.

Celeron 847 824
Athlon 300U 1623
+97%

Geekbench 2

Celeron 847 2014
Athlon 300U 6868
+241%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.30 2.43
Integrated graphics card 0.34 2.98
Recency 19 June 2011 6 January 2019
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 17 Watt 15 Watt

Athlon 300U has a 710% higher aggregate performance score, 776.5% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 7 years, 100% more threads, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 13.3% lower power consumption.

The Athlon 300U is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 847 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 847 and Athlon 300U, 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.


Intel Celeron 847
Celeron 847
AMD Athlon 300U
Athlon 300U

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.


2.8 389 votes

Rate Celeron 847 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 460 votes

Rate Athlon 300U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 847 or Athlon 300U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.