0 Comments
| Intel Celeron 847 vs AMD E 350 |
Released June, 2011
Intel Celeron 847
- 1.1 GHz
- Dual core
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
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 |
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) |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron 847 vs E 350
CompuBench 1.5 (T-Rex) Data courtesy CompuBench
Celeron 847
0.09 fps
E 350
0.1 fps
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron 847
1,460
E 350
1,096
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron 847
878
E 350
620
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron 847
54,500 MB/s
E 350
51,600 MB/s
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron 847
1,405
E 350
1,032
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron 847
1,596
E 350
1,201
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Celeron 847
938
E 350
782
PassMark (Single Core)
Celeron 847
539
E 350
420
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 ![]() | AMD E 350 ![]() |
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 | $75 | |
Intel Celeron 847 vs 1007U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$134 | $72 | |
Intel Celeron 847 vs J1800 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$134 | $75 | |
Intel Celeron 847 vs 1037U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$125 | ||
AMD E 350 vs Intel Core i3 3220 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$63 | ||
AMD E 350 vs Intel Atom D525 | ||
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 | ![]() |
$281 | ||
Intel Core i5 6200U vs AMD A9 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$275 | $161 | |
Intel Core i3 4005U vs Pentium N3540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$250 | $350 | |
Intel Core i5 6600K vs i7 6700K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$248 | $230 | |
Intel Core i7 4770K vs AMD FX 9590 | ||