Processor N95 vs Celeron 847

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 847
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.30
Processor N95
2023
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
3.18
+960%

Processor N95 outperforms Celeron 847 by a whopping 960% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 847 and Processor N95 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking31131616
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Alder Lake-N
Power efficiency1.6720.05
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Alder Lake-N (2023)
Release date19 June 2011 (13 years ago)3 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$134no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 847 and Processor N95 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speed1.1 GHz0.1 GHz
Boost clock speed1.1 GHz3.4 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rate4 × 5 GT/sno data
Multiplier11no data
L1 cache64K (per core)96 KB (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)2 MB (shared)
L3 cache2 MB (shared)6 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm10 nm
Die size131 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature100 °C105 °C
Number of transistors504 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 847 and Processor N95 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
SocketFCBGA1023Intel BGA 1264
Power consumption (TDP)17 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 847 and Processor N95. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI-+
FMA++
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
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 Processor N95 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-+
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 847 and Processor N95 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 Processor N95. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4, DDR5
Maximum memory size16 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
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 UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) ( - 1200 MHz)
Graphics max frequency800 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 847 and Processor N95 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 Processor N95.

PCIe version2.03.0
PCI Express lanes169

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
Processor N95 3.18
+960%

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
Processor N95 4783
+277%

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
Processor N95 13854
+475%

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
Processor N95 5952
+500%

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
Processor N95 17.04
+372%

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
Processor N95 6
+754%

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
Processor N95 1.83
+346%

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
Processor N95 2.7
+3275%

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
Processor N95 2320
+181%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.30 3.18
Integrated graphics card 0.34 2.30
Recency 19 June 2011 3 January 2023
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 17 Watt 15 Watt

Processor N95 has a 960% higher aggregate performance score, 576.5% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 11 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 220% more advanced lithography process, and 13.3% lower power consumption.

The Processor N95 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 847 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 847 and Processor N95, 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 Processor N95
Processor N95

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
3.5 717 votes

Rate Processor N95 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 847 or Processor N95, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.