Intel Celeron 847 vs Atom N2600 |
Intel Celeron 847
- 1.1 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Celeron 847
 | Has virtualization support Yes |
Comparing the Intel Celeron 847 and the Intel Atom N2600 is a nostalgic one, to be honest. Two years isn’t a long time, but in the world of technology- where things fly by so fast- it is a really long time. But, the short answer here is that the Atom is the better processor.
Both processors offer two cores each, but the Atom’s cores clock higher than those of the Celeron- 1.6GHz and 1.1GHz respectively. Not only that, but the Atom is hyperthreaded, which means it can handle four threads to the two of the Celeron. Furthermore the Atom offers a better memory controller and better power consumption and performance-per-watt rating.
So, as a brief conclusion, as the sheet below clearly shows the Intel Atom N2600 is better than the Intel Celeron 847.
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Has virtualization support | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
| CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Atom N2600 vs the Celeron 847. | |||||||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron 847 vs Atom N2600
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
3D Mark 06 (CPU)
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Celeron 847 | vs | Atom N2600 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.1 GHz | 1.6 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | No | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 17W | 3.5W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 4.1 $/year | 0.84 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 3.23 pt/W | 8.43 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 13.81W | 2.84W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | DMI | DMI | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Transfer rate | 5,000 MT/s | 2,500 MT/s | |
details | Celeron 847 | vs | Atom N2600 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 4 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 32 nm | 32 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 100°C | Unknown - 100°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 1.1 GHz | 1.6 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 1.1 GHz | 1.6 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 1.1 GHz | 1.6 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | GPU | GPU | |
| GPU clock speed | 350 MHz | 400 MHz | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3-1333 | |||
| DDR3-1066 | |||
| DDR3 | |||
| Channels | Dual Channel | Single Channel | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 21,333.32 MB/s | 6,400 MB/s | |
| Maximum memory size | 16,384 MB | 2,498.56 MB | |
 Intel Celeron 847  Report a correction |  Intel Atom N2600 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 847 vs 3217U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $134 | $75 | |
| 847 vs 1007U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $134 | ||
| 847 vs 350 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $134 | $72 | |
| 847 vs J1800 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $134 | $63 | |
| 847 vs D525 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $42 | ||
| N2600 vs 70 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $42 | ||
| N2600 vs N570 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| 4005U vs N3540 | ||
| | VS | |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 847 vs 3217U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
