Celeron 847 vs J1800

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron J1800
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.36
+20%
Celeron 847
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.30

Celeron J1800 outperforms Celeron 847 by a significant 20% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron J1800 and Celeron 847 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking30473110
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Celeron
Power efficiency3.391.66
Architecture codenameBay Trail-D (2013)Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release date1 November 2013 (11 years ago)19 June 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$72$134

Detailed specifications

Celeron J1800 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 speed2.41 GHz1.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.58 GHz1.1 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 2.0
Bus rateno data4 × 5 GT/s
Multiplierno data11
L1 cache112 KB64K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB256K (per core)
L3 cache1 MB L2 Cache2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm32 nm
Die sizeno data131 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °C100 °C
Number of transistorsno data504 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron J1800 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)
SocketFCBGA1170FCBGA1023
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J1800 and Celeron 847. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
FMA-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
PAE36 Bitno data
FDI-+
Fast Memory Accessno data+
RST-no data

Security technologies

Celeron J1800 and Celeron 847 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDB++
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron J1800 and Celeron 847 are enumerated here.

VT-d--
VT-x++
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron J1800 and Celeron 847. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size8 GB16 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21.335 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 SeriesIntel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (350 - 800 MHz)
Quick Sync Video+-
Graphics max frequency792 MHz800 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron J1800 and Celeron 847 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported22
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J1800 and Celeron 847.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes416

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 J1800 0.36
+20%
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.

Celeron J1800 573
+19.9%
Celeron 847 478

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.36 0.30
Integrated graphics card 0.77 0.34
Recency 1 November 2013 19 June 2011
Chip lithography 22 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 17 Watt

Celeron J1800 has a 20% higher aggregate performance score, 126.5% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 2 years, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 70% lower power consumption.

The Celeron J1800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 847 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J1800 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.


Intel Celeron J1800
Celeron J1800
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.


2.8 538 votes

Rate Celeron J1800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 386 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 Celeron J1800 or Celeron 847, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.