Celeron 847 vs Ryzen 5 1600X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 1600X outperforms Celeron 847 by a whopping 2459% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1096 | 3331 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.36 | 0.01 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 3.29 | 0.72 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 11 April 2017 (8 years ago) | 19 June 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | $134 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 5 1600X has 33500% better value for money than Celeron 847.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 1600X 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 cores | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 12 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 1.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 1.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 2.0 |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | 4 × 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 36 | 11 |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 504 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 1600X 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 configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | AM4 | FCBGA1023 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1600X and Celeron 847. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| 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
Ryzen 5 1600X and Celeron 847 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 Ryzen 5 1600X and Celeron 847 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 Ryzen 5 1600X and Celeron 847. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | 21.335 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (350 - 800 MHz) |
| Clear Video HD | - | - |
| Graphics max frequency | - | 800 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Ryzen 5 1600X and Celeron 847 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | - | 2 |
| eDP | - | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| SDVO | - | + |
| CRT | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1600X and Celeron 847.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 24 | 16 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.42 | 0.29 |
| Recency | 11 April 2017 | 19 June 2011 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 2 |
| Threads | 12 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 17 Watt |
Ryzen 5 1600X has a 2458.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 200% more physical cores and 500% more threads, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 847, on the other hand, has 458.8% lower power consumption.
The AMD Ryzen 5 1600X is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron 847 in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen 5 1600X is a desktop processor while Celeron 847 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
