0 Comments
| 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 |
Features Key features of the Itanium 9130M vs Celeron 847
clock speed
Itanium 9130M
1.66 GHz
Celeron 847
1.1 GHz
L2 cache
Itanium 9130M
2 MB
Celeron 847
1 MB
L3 cache
Itanium 9130M
8 MB
Celeron 847
2 MB
TDP
Itanium 9130M
104W
Celeron 847
17W
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 ![]() | Intel Celeron 847 ![]() |
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 | ||