Intel Itanium 9130M vs Celeron 847 |
Released October, 2007
Intel Itanium 9130M
- 1.66 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Itanium 9130M
 | Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB | | Higher clock speed 1.66 GHz |
| | Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 4 | | Much more l3 cache per core 4 MB/core |
VS
Released June, 2011
Intel Celeron 847
- 1.1 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Celeron 847
| | Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm | | Much lower typical power consumption 13.81W |
| | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| 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 | 1.66 GHz | vs | 1.1 GHz | More than 50% higher clock speed | |||
| Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 4 | vs | 1 | 3 supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
| Much more l3 cache per core | 4 MB/core | vs | 1 MB/core | 4x more l3 cache per core | |||
| More l3 cache | 8 MB | vs | 2 MB | 4x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| |||||||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 32 nm | vs | 90 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 13.81W | vs | 84.5W | 6.1x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| 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 | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits | |||
| Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature | 100 °C | vs | 76 °C | More than 30% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
| Newer | Jun, 2011 | vs | Oct, 2007 | Release date over 3 years later | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 4.1 $/year | vs | 25.05 $/year | 6.1x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 14.89 $/year | vs | 91.1 $/year | 6.1x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Features Key features of the Itanium 9130M vs Celeron 847
clock speed
L2 cache
L3 cache
TDP
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Itanium 9130M | vs | Celeron 847 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.66 GHz | 1.1 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | No | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | No | Yes | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | None | GPU | |
| Number of displays supported | N/A | 2 | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | 350 MHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | 800 MHz | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | DMI | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
details | Itanium 9130M | vs | Celeron 847 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | 2 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 4 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 90 nm | 32 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 4 | 1 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 76°C | Unknown - 100°C | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 104W | 17W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 25.05 $/year | 4.1 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 91.1 $/year | 14.89 $/year | |
| Typical power consumption | 84.5W | 13.81W | |
 Intel Itanium 9130M  Report a correction |  Intel Celeron 847 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 847 vs 3217U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $134 | $42 | |
| 847 vs N2600 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $134 | $75 | |
| 847 vs 1007U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $134 | ||
| 847 vs 350 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $134 | $63 | |
| 847 vs D525 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $134 | $72 | |
| 847 vs J1800 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $134 | $75 | |
| 847 vs 1037U | ||
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 |  |
| $248 | $230 | |
| 4770K vs 9590 | ||
 | VS | |
| $250 | $350 | |
| 6600K vs 6700K | ||
