Celeron N2810 vs 847

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 847
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.30
+25%
Celeron N2810
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 7 Watt
0.24

Celeron 847 outperforms Celeron N2810 by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 847 and Celeron N2810 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking30983166
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Celeron
Power efficiency1.673.24
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
Release date19 June 2011 (13 years ago)11 September 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$134$260

Detailed specifications

Celeron 847 and Celeron N2810 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 speed1.1 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed1.1 GHz2 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rate4 × 5 GT/sno data
Multiplier11no data
L1 cache64K (per core)56K (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache2 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm22 nm
Die size131 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature100 °C100 °C
Number of transistors504 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 847 and Celeron N2810 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
SocketFCBGA1023FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)17 Watt7.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 847 and Celeron N2810. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
FMA+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
Smart Connectno data+
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Celeron 847 and Celeron N2810 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB++
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 847 and Celeron N2810 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 847 and Celeron N2810. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size16 GB8 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth21.335 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (350 - 800 MHz)Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series
Clear Video HD--
Graphics max frequency800 MHz756 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 847 and Celeron N2810 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported22
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 847 and Celeron N2810.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes164
USB revisionno data3.0 and 2.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data5

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
+25%
Celeron N2810 0.24

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 847 478
+26.8%
Celeron N2810 377

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
+4%
Celeron N2810 151

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 847 262
Celeron N2810 274
+4.6%

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
+27.8%
Celeron N2810 993

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
+63.3%
Celeron N2810 1474

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.

Celeron 847 993
Celeron N2810 1043
+5.1%

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
Celeron N2810 63.4
+26.8%

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.

Celeron 847 1
Celeron N2810 1
+10.8%

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.

Celeron 847 0.41
+10.8%
Celeron N2810 0.37

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
Celeron N2810 0.1
+37.5%

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
+21.2%
Celeron N2810 680

Geekbench 2

Celeron 847 2014
+6.1%
Celeron N2810 1898

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.30 0.24
Integrated graphics card 0.34 0.77
Recency 19 June 2011 11 September 2013
Chip lithography 32 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 17 Watt 7 Watt

Celeron 847 has a 25% higher aggregate performance score.

Celeron N2810, on the other hand, has 126.5% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 2 years, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 142.9% lower power consumption.

The Celeron 847 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2810 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 847 and Celeron N2810, 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
Intel Celeron N2810
Celeron N2810

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.


2.8 384 votes

Rate Celeron 847 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 41 vote

Rate Celeron N2810 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 847 or Celeron N2810, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.