Winner
Intel Celeron 847
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Celeron 847 based on its performance, single-core performance and power consumption.
See full details Intel Celeron 847 vs AMD E 350 |
Released June, 2011
Intel Celeron 847
- 1.1 GHz
- Dual core
8 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Celeron 847
 | Significantly newer manufacturing process 32 nm | | Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 54,500 MB/s |
| | Lower typical power consumption 13.81W | | Higher Maximum operating temperature 100 °C |
VS
Released January, 2011
AMD E 350
- 1.6 GHz
- Dual core
7.4 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the AMD E 350
| | Higher clock speed 1.6 GHz | | Much better 3DMark06 CPU score 24 |
| | Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.5 GHz | | Higher GPU clock speed 492 MHz |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 847 vs 350 among all CPUs
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more | |
Integrated Graphics | |
Integrated GPU performance for graphics | |
| Sky Diver and Cloud Gate | |
Integrated Graphics (OpenCL) | |
Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
How efficiently does the processor use electricity? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
| 8 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Significantly newer manufacturing process | 32 nm | vs | 40 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score | 54,500 MB/s | vs | 51,600 MB/s | More than 5% better geekbench 3 AES single core score | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 13.81W | vs | 30.2W | 2.2x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Higher Maximum operating temperature | 100 °C | vs | 90 °C | More than 10% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
| Better performance per watt | 3.23 pt/W | vs | 1.5 pt/W | Around 2.2x better performance per watt | |||
| Significantly lower annual home energy cost | 4.1 $/year | vs | 12 $/year | 2.9x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 14.89 $/year | vs | 28.21 $/year | More than 45% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Newer | Jun, 2011 | vs | Jan, 2011 | Release date 5 months later | |||
| |||||||
| Higher clock speed | 1.6 GHz | vs | 1.1 GHz | More than 45% higher clock speed | |||
| Much better 3DMark06 CPU score | 24 | vs | 23.4 | Around 5% better 3DMark06 CPU score | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.5 GHz | vs | 1.1 GHz | Around 3.2x better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Higher GPU clock speed | 492 MHz | vs | 350 MHz | More than 40% higher GPU clock speed | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.5 GHz | vs | 1.1 GHz | Around 3.2x better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron 847 vs E 350
CompuBench 1.5 (T-Rex) Data courtesy CompuBench
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Celeron 847 | vs | E 350 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.1 GHz | 1.6 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE4a | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| AMD64 | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| AMD-V | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 17W | 18W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 4.1 $/year | 12 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 14.89 $/year | 28.21 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 3.23 pt/W | 1.5 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 13.81W | 30.2W | |
details | Celeron 847 | vs | E 350 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threads | 2 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 32 nm | 40 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 11 | 8 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 100°C | Unknown - 90°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 1.1 GHz | 3.5 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 1.1 GHz | 3.5 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 1.1 GHz | 3.5 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | GPU | GPU | |
| GPU clock speed | 350 MHz | 492 MHz | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3-1333 | |||
| DDR3-1066 | |||
| DDR3 | |||
 Intel Celeron 847  Report a correction |  AMD E 350 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $134 | $225 | |
| Intel Celeron 847 vs Core i3 3217U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $134 | $42 | |
| Intel Celeron 847 vs Atom N2600 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $134 | $63 | |
| Intel Celeron 847 vs Atom D525 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $134 | $75 | |
| Intel Celeron 847 vs 1007U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $125 | ||
| AMD E 350 vs Intel Core i3 3220 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $82 | ||
| AMD E 350 vs Intel Celeron J1900 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $72 | ||
| AMD E 350 vs Intel Celeron J1800 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| Intel Xeon W3520 vs Core i5 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| Intel Core i7 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs AMD A8 6410 | ||
| | VS | |
| $134 | $225 | |
| Intel Celeron 847 vs Core i3 3217U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| Intel Core i5 6200U vs AMD A9 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| Intel Core i5 3470 vs AMD A6 5200 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| Intel Core i3 4005U vs Pentium N3540 | ||
