Athlon 64 X2 3600+ vs Celeron 847E
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 64 X2 3600+ outperforms Celeron 847E by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 847E and Athlon 64 X2 3600+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3046 | 3008 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.06 | 0.43 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Manchester (2005−2006) |
| Release date | no data | 31 May 2005 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $111 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 847E and Athlon 64 X2 3600+ 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 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.1 GHz | 2 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 | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 131 mm2 | 156 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 504 Million | 154 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 847E and Athlon 64 X2 3600+ 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 | no data | 939 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 89 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 847E and Athlon 64 X2 3600+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| FMA | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 847E and Athlon 64 X2 3600+ are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 847E and Athlon 64 X2 3600+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1333 | DDR1 |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21.335 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
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 | 0.37 | 0.40 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 89 Watt |
Celeron 847E has a 181.3% more advanced lithography process, and 423.5% lower power consumption.
Athlon 64 X2 3600+, on the other hand, has a 8.1% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron 847E and Athlon 64 X2 3600+.
Be aware that Celeron 847E is a notebook processor while Athlon 64 X2 3600+ is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 847E and Athlon 64 X2 3600+, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
