Celeron 847 vs N2930

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron N2930
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 7 Watt
0.64
+113%
Celeron 847
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.30

Celeron N2930 outperforms Celeron 847 by a whopping 113% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N2930 and Celeron 847 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27713113
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Celeron
Power efficiency8.661.67
Architecture codenameBay Trail-M (2013−2014)Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release date23 February 2014 (10 years ago)19 June 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$134

Detailed specifications

Celeron N2930 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed1.83 GHz1.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.16 GHz1.1 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 2.0
Bus rateno data4 × 5 GT/s
Multiplierno data11
L1 cache56K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm32 nm
Die sizeno data131 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °C100 °C
Number of transistorsno data504 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N2930 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)7.5 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2930 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 States++
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
Smart Connect+no data
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+
RST-no data

Security technologies

Celeron N2930 and Celeron 847 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2930 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 N2930 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+-
Clear Video HD--
Graphics max frequency854 MHz800 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2930 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 N2930 and Celeron 847.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes416
USB revision3.0 and 2.0no data
Total number of SATA ports2no data
Number of USB ports5no 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.


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 N2930 0.64
+113%
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 N2930 1017
+112%
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.

Celeron N2930 162
+4.5%
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.

Celeron N2930 476
+81%
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.

Celeron N2930 1132
Celeron 847 1270
+12.2%

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.

Celeron N2930 3880
+61.2%
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.

Celeron N2930 2214
+123%
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.

Celeron N2930 27.25
+195%
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.

Celeron N2930 2
+142%
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.

Celeron N2930 0.41
Celeron 847 0.41

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Celeron N2930 0.2
+200%
Celeron 847 0.1

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Celeron N2930 1181
+43.3%
Celeron 847 824

Geekbench 2

Celeron N2930 2968
+47.4%
Celeron 847 2014

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.64 0.30
Integrated graphics card 0.77 0.34
Recency 23 February 2014 19 June 2011
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 22 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 17 Watt

Celeron N2930 has a 113.3% higher aggregate performance score, 126.5% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 142.9% lower power consumption.

The Celeron N2930 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 847 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2930 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 N2930
Celeron N2930
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.


3.1 56 votes

Rate Celeron N2930 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 388 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 N2930 or Celeron 847, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.