A8-3800 vs Celeron 847

VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 847 and A8-3800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot rated2271
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Celeronno data
Power efficiencyno data1.87
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Llano (2011−2012)
Release date19 June 2011 (13 years ago)30 June 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$134no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 847 and A8-3800 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speed1.1 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed1.1 GHz2.7 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rate4 × 5 GT/sno data
Multiplier11no data
L1 cache64K (per core)128 KB (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache2 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm32 nm
Die size131 mm2228 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistors504 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 847 and A8-3800 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCBGA1023FM1
Power consumption (TDP)17 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 847 and A8-3800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
FMA+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Celeron 847 and A8-3800 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 847 and A8-3800 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 847 and A8-3800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size16 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21.335 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)AMD Radeon HD 6550D
Graphics max frequency800 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 847 and A8-3800 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 847 and A8-3800.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

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



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.

Celeron 847 478
A8-3800 2049
+329%

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.

Celeron 847 157
A8-3800 291
+85.4%

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.

Celeron 847 262
A8-3800 889
+239%

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Power consumption (TDP) 17 Watt 65 Watt

Celeron 847 has 282.4% lower power consumption.

A8-3800, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

We couldn't decide between Celeron 847 and A8-3800. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Celeron 847 is a notebook processor while A8-3800 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 847 and A8-3800, 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.


Intel Celeron 847
Celeron 847
AMD A8-3800
A8-3800

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.


2.8 384 votes

Rate Celeron 847 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 69 votes

Rate A8-3800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 847 or A8-3800, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.