Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Intel Celeron 1047UE

Front view of Intel Celeron 1047UE
Front view of Intel Atom E3845

Intel Atom E3845

CPUBoss Winner
Join the discussion

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron 1047UE

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 1047UE

Report a correction
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed
Better turbo clock speed 900 MHz vs 792 MHz Around 15% better turbo clock speed
Front view of Intel Atom E3845

Reasons to consider the
Intel Atom E3845

Report a correction
Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Higher clock speed 1.91 GHz vs 1.4 GHz More than 35% higher clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 2.19 pt/$ vs 0.41 pt/$ More than 5.2x better performance per dollar
Much better performance per watt 11.4 pt/W vs 3.14 pt/W Around 3.8x better performance per watt
Significantly higher GPU clock speed 542 MHz vs 350 MHz Around 55% higher GPU clock speed
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 1.92 GHz vs 1.4 GHz More than 35% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Lower typical power consumption 8.13W vs 13.81W More than 40% lower typical power consumption
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Higher Maximum operating temperature 110 °C vs 105 °C Around 5% higher Maximum operating temperature
Newer Oct, 2013 vs Jan, 2013 Release date 8 months later
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.91 GHz vs 1.4 GHz More than 35% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Lower annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year vs 4.1 $/year More than 40% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 8.76 $/year vs 14.89 $/year More than 40% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron 1047UE vs Atom E3845

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Celeron 1047UE
1,188
Atom E3845
1,466

PassMark (Single Core)

Celeron 1047UE
520
Atom E3845
398

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

 Celeron 1047UE  vs
Atom E3845 
Clock speed 1.4 GHz 1.91 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad core
Socket type
BGA 1023
BGA 1170

features
Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes No

power consumption
TDP 17W 10W
Annual home energy cost 4.1 $/year 2.41 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 14.89 $/year 8.76 $/year
Performance per watt 3.14 pt/W 11.4 pt/W
Typical power consumption 13.81W 8.13W

bus
Architecture DMI FSB
Number of links 1 1

details

 Celeron 1047UE  vs
Atom E3845 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 4
L2 cache 1 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 105°C -40 - 110°C

overclocking
Overclocked clock speed 1.4 GHz 1.92 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.4 GHz 1.91 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 1.4 GHz 1.92 GHz

integrated graphics
GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics HD
Number of displays supported 2 2
GPU clock speed 350 MHz 542 MHz
Turbo clock speed 900 MHz 792 MHz

memory controller
Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3
DDR3L-1333
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 12,800 MB/s 12,800 MB/s
Maximum memory size 16,384 MB 8,192 MB
Intel Celeron 1047UE
Report a correction
Intel Atom E3845
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

CPUBoss