Celeron 847 vs A4-3305M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A4-3305M
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.47
+56.7%
Celeron 847
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.30

A4-3305M outperforms Celeron 847 by an impressive 57% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A4-3305M and Celeron 847 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking29213113
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesIntel Celeron
Power efficiency1.271.67
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release date14 June 2011 (13 years ago)19 June 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$134

Detailed specifications

A4-3305M and Celeron 847 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed1.9 GHz1.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.5 GHz1.1 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 2.0
Bus rateno data4 × 5 GT/s
Multiplierno data11
L1 cache128K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm32 nm
Die size228 mm2131 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Number of transistors1,178 million504 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A4-3305M and Celeron 847 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFS1FCBGA1023
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-3305M and Celeron 847. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480GIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
FMA-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

A4-3305M and Celeron 847 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-3305M and Celeron 847 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-3305M and Celeron 847. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data16 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21.335 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 6480G (593 MHz)Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (350 - 800 MHz)
Graphics max frequencyno data800 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A4-3305M and Celeron 847 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-3305M and Celeron 847.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

A4-3305M 0.47
+56.7%
Celeron 847 0.30

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

A4-3305M 751
+56.8%
Celeron 847 479

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

A4-3305M 236
+52.3%
Celeron 847 155

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

A4-3305M 361
+37.3%
Celeron 847 263

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

A4-3305M 1812
+42.7%
Celeron 847 1270

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

A4-3305M 3395
+41%
Celeron 847 2408

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

A4-3305M 1614
+62.6%
Celeron 847 993

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

A4-3305M 40.28
+99.6%
Celeron 847 80.4

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

A4-3305M 1
+72.3%
Celeron 847 1

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

A4-3305M 0.56
+36.6%
Celeron 847 0.41

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.47 0.30
Integrated graphics card 0.66 0.34
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 17 Watt

A4-3305M has a 56.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 94.1% faster integrated GPU.

Celeron 847, on the other hand, has 105.9% lower power consumption.

The A4-3305M is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 847 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A4-3305M and Celeron 847, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD A4-3305M
A4-3305M
Intel Celeron 847
Celeron 847

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 114 votes

Rate A4-3305M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 389 votes

Rate Celeron 847 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A4-3305M or Celeron 847, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.