E1-7010 vs Celeron 847E

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 847E
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.37
E1-7010
2015
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.38
+2.7%

E1-7010 outperforms Celeron 847E by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 847E and E1-7010 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking30453028
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD E-Series
Power efficiency2.063.59
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Carrizo-L (2015)
Release dateno data7 May 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$111no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 847E and E1-7010 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
Boost clock speed1.1 GHz1.5 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rate4 × 5 GT/sno data
Multiplier11no data
L1 cache128 KBno data
L2 cache512 KB1024 KB
L3 cache2 MBno data
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size131 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data90 °C
Number of transistors504 Million930 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 847E and E1-7010 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)no data
Socketno dataFP4
Power consumption (TDP)17 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 847E and E1-7010. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, AMD64, VT
AES-NI-+
FMA+FMA4
AVX-+
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
VirusProtect-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 847E and E1-7010 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x+no data
IOMMU 2.0-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 847E and E1-7010. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1333DDR3L-1333
Maximum memory size16 GBno data
Max memory channels21
Maximum memory bandwidth21.335 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)AMD Radeon R2 Graphics
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 847E and E1-7010 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron 847E and E1-7010 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 847E and E1-7010.

PCIe versionno data2.0

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.

Celeron 847E 0.37
E1-7010 0.38
+2.7%

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 847E 584
E1-7010 602
+3.1%

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 847E 190
+47.3%
E1-7010 129

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 847E 338
+54.3%
E1-7010 219

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.37 0.38
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 17 Watt 10 Watt

E1-7010 has a 2.7% higher aggregate performance score, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 70% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron 847E and E1-7010.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 847E and E1-7010, 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 847E
Celeron 847E
AMD E1-7010
E1-7010

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.


2.3 3 votes

Rate Celeron 847E on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 228 votes

Rate E1-7010 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 847E or E1-7010, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.